Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Private Bill Petitions [Lords] (Standing Orders not complied with),

Mr. SPEAKER laid upon the Table Report from one of the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, That in the case of the Petition for the following Bill, originating in the Lords, the Standing Orders have not been complied with, namely:

Penzance Corporation [Lords].

Report referred to the Select Committee on Standing Orders.

Middlesex Hospital Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN DOMESTIC SERVANTS.

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any information with regard to the general standard of remuneration paid to foreign girls permitted to work in this country as domestic servants, companions, etc.?

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown): No, Sir. I may mention, however, that it is one of the conditions for the grant of a permit to employ a foreign domestic servant that the wages to be paid are not less favourable than those usually paid to British employés for similar work in the district. It is not the Department's practice in any circumstances to grant permits for foreign domestics where the wage offered is less than £36 a year.

Mr. Mander: Are steps taken to check the payment of wages, and is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that British sub-

jects are not being undercut by the foreigners who come in?

Mr. Brown: Most decidedly.

Mr. Mander: Are steps taken to check the position?

Mr. Brown: Certainly.

Mr. Bellenger: Is the Minister aware that in a large number of these cases the girls are paid much greater salaries than English girls?

Mr. Brown: That is so.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is it not a fact that our own people will not take up domestic service?

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

EX-SERVICE MEN (GLASGOW).

Mr. T. Henderson: asked the Minister of Labour the number of ex-service men in receipt of disability pensions of £1 per week or less resident in the Tradeston division of Glasgow and who sign at the Terrace Street, West Street, and Stanley Street Area Offices under the Unemployment Assistance Board regulations; and how many of these men have received the extra winter relief under the discretionary powers given to the area officers?

Mr. E. Brown: I regret that this information is not available.

NON-CLAIMANTS REGISTER.

Mr. Graham White: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will state, as on the last convenient date, the number of men, women, and juveniles on the non-claimants register?

Mr. E. Brown: At 14th March, 1938, there were 51,716 men and 38,751 women, aged 18 years and over, 10,263 juveniles, aged 16 and 17, and 33,863 under 16 years of age, on the registers of Employment Exchanges in Great Britain, who had no application for benefit or unemployment allowances.

STATISTICS.

Mr. T. Smith: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will state for February, 1938, for each of the main groups of Special Areas in Great Britain and for each of the industrial regions of which they form part, the numbers of insured


persons attached to each of the main industries and employment; and the numbers and percentages of unemployed insured persons therein?

Sir William Jenkins: asked the Minister of Labour what were the numbers of persons unemployed in the Pontardawe area, including Gwann-cae-Gurven and Brynaman, in January, 1936, January, 1937, and January, 1938; and what is the number for the last available date, giving the figures for various industries separately?

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons registered as unemployed in South Wales and Monmouthshire in the age groups 45 to 55, and 55 to 65 on the last convenient date; and whether they reveal an increase or decrease on the previous year?

Mr. Brown: It has not been possible hi the time available to compile the information requested. It is being extracted, and will be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT in each case in due course.

JUNIOR INSTRUCTION CENTRES.

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Labour the number of education authorities in Great Britain in whose area there are no courses of instruction available to persons under the age of 18 under Section 15 of the Unemployment Act, 1930; and whether he will give the numbers of wholly unemployed boys and girls claiming benefit at the same date?

Mr. E. Brown: The Section now operative in this respect is Section 76 of the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1935. The requirements of that Section as regards the provision of junior instruction centres are complied with by all the higher education authorities in which the requisite conditions exist, namely, in 77 out of a total of 181. The number of wholly unemployed boys and girls claiming benefit on 14th March last was 14,521 boys and 11,601 girls.

Mr. Day: Cannot anything be done in the other districts?

Mr. Brown: I have pointed out in this answer that the provisions of the Section are complied with by all the higher education authorities in which the conditions exist. In the other districts there is no need for centres.

ASSISTANCE.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Labour the reason why the weekly allowance was stopped in the case of a woman who broadcast how she fed her family on 10s. 2½d. per week; will he inquire what the fee was that she received and how much she paid out of the fee to an agent; and what action he intends taking about the matter?

Mr. E. Brown: I assume the hon. Member refers to the case of Mrs. Yates. This applicant reported earning from broadcasting last week three guineas. It is understood that no agency fees are payable out of this amount. She has also reported that she received at the week-end a payment of five guineas, after deduction of agency fees, for publicity work. These net receipts of eight guineas are being taken into account by the Board to the extent of 36s., setting off the allowance otherwise payable last week and this week. Mrs. Yates' husband is in receipt of unemployment benefit of £1 a week.

Mr. Thorne: Where did the right hon. Gentleman get his information that this woman received five guineas? It is contrary to my information.

Mr. Brown: The facts which have been reported in the Press are not quite accurate. The statements which I have made are based upon statements made by Mrs. Yates herself to the Board's officer.

Mr. Thorne: Is the Minister aware that the statements made to the "Sunday Express" representative were made in her own house, and that there must be something in those statements?

Mr. Brown: I can only say that the answer which I have given is based upon statements made by Mrs. Yates herself to the Board's officer.

Mr. Gallagher: Can the Minister explain how it comes about that a woman gets five guineas because she is able to keep her family on 10s. 2½d per week?

Mr. Robert Gibson: asked the Minister of Labour for what reason there has been a general reduction in the allowance paid at the Employment Exchange, Greenock, to single men from 17s. to 15s.; and whether he has any statement to make on the position?

Mr. Brown: I am informed by the Board that there has been no general reduction in Greenock in the allowances of men living otherwise than as members of households from 17s. to 15s. Such reductions are, however, being made in about 100 cases under the statutory regulations providing for the transition from the "standstill," and in accordance with the recommendations of the local advisory committee. It is always open to an aggrieved applicant to exercise his right of appeal to the appeal tribunal, but the matter is not one in which I have any authority to intervene.

Mr. Gibson: Has the right hon. Gentleman any statement to make with regard to the reservists who, after the speech of the Secretary of State for War, had their weekly allowance reduced from 17s. to 15S.?

Mr. Brown: That raises another question.

Mr. J. Griffiths: Are the Unemployment Assistance Board taking these cases into consideration in connection with the circular relating to the increased cost of living? This payment of 15s. was fixed a long time ago.

Mr. Brown: I have already told the House on several occasions that allowances are given on the merits of each case, according to the need.

Mr. Buchanan: Is it not a fact that the circular issued in connection with the increased cost of living definitely rules out single men?

Mr. Brown: I have already pointed out the position.

Mr. George Hall: Are there not thousands of single men over 21 years of age, who, as the result of the "standstill" suffered a reduction from 17s. to 10s. a week, and does the right hon. Gentleman think that 10s. a week is sufficient?

Mr. Brown: I have already dealt with that part of the question. Parliament decided the matter years ago.

ELDERLY PERSONS.

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour whether he has now completed plans for dealing with the problem of the elderly unemployed; and whether he can

indicate when he will be in a position to make a statement on the matter?

Mr. E. Brown: I have nothing to add at present to the answers which I have recently given to similar questions.

Mr. Griffiths: In view of the fact that it is many months since the right hon. Gentleman made a statement about the intentions of his Department, may I ask how long we are to wait?

Mr. Brown: I have pointed out on several occasions that this is a matter of administration, and that the proper time for making a statement is on the Estimates, and I hope to do so.

Mr. George Griffiths: Is it not a fact that we shall have to wait until we get on those benches before there is any change?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY (LEGISLATION).

Mr. Benjamin Smith: asked the Minister of Labour when the Bill for regulating wages and conditions in the road transport goods industry will be introduced?

Mr. E. Brown: I hope to be able to introduce this Bill before the House rises for the Easter Recess.

Oral Answers to Questions — DURHAM COUNTY WATER BOARD (EMPLOYÉS).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Labour the terms of the exception certificate granted to the Durham County Water Board in respect to their employés; whether, among the conditions of exception, there is any guarantee that all employés coming within the scope of such a certificate shall have a full six-day working week; and whether he is aware that a section of the employés of the Durham County Water Board have for the past five or six years been working a shorter working week than the 47-hour week agreed upon?

Mr. E. Brown: The certificate of exception granted to the Durham County Water Board covers persons in permanent employment in posts which the Board has designated as established under the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1922. In granting the certificate, the Minister requires no guarantee that the employés


covered shall always have a full six-day working week, but the certificate contains a note to the effect that it will cease to apply to any person placed upon short time, not being short time which in the opinion of the Minister makes it unnecessary for the persons concerned to be insured under the Act. I am not aware of the circumstances alleged in the last part of the question.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVIATION WORKS, WEYBRIDGE (DISPUTE).

Commander Marsden: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is now in a position to make any further statement concerning the strike at Hawker's aviation works at Weybridge?

Mr. E. Brown: I regret to say that this stoppage of work continues and that serious delay in production is being caused. I hope, however, that new efforts now being made to secure a resumption of work will be successful, and that the causes of the dispute will be dealt with in accordance with the agreed constitutional procedure.

Commander Marsden: Are the strikers in receipt of strike pay?

Mr. Brown: No, Sir; this is an unofficial strike, and the union concerned is using its best endeavours.

Mr. Buchanan: Is the Minister aware that certain of the men are receiving strike pay from their union?

Mr. Brown: That is not according to my information.

Mr. Buchanan: Make another inquiry and you will find out.

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN POLICE COURTS (DOMESTIC PROCEEDINGS).

Mr. Petherick: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what arrangements each of the Metropolitan Police Courts has made for separating the hearing and determination of domestic proceedings from other business, as provided by Section 2 (1) of the Summary Procedure (Domestic Proceedings) Act, 1937;
(2) in which of the Metropolitan Police Courts separate afternoons are set aside for domestic proceedings;
(3) which of the Metropolitan Police Courts act on the principle laid down in paragraph 16 of the Report of the Departmental Committee on Social Services in Courts of Summary Jurisdiction (Cmd. 5122, of 1936), that there should be in every case a right of direct access to the court, and it should be for the court to decide on the facts of each case whether conciliation should be attempted before the legal issues are tried?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir Samuel Hoare): I am informed by the Chief Magistrate that at only two Metropolitan Police Courts has it been found possible to set aside a whole afternoon each week for the hearing of domestic proceedings, but at every court arrangements have been made for fulfilling the requirements of the Summary Procedure (Domestic Proceedings) Act, 1937. In three courts these cases are heard in a different room from that in which the ordinary business is transacted, and at every Metropolitan Police Court domestic proceedings are heard apart from other cases, either before or after the other business of the court. I am also informed that at all the Metropolitan Police Courts applicants are given direct access to the magistrates, and at nearly all of them it is the magistrate who decides whether or not to suggest conciliation before there is any hearing of the case. At one police court the magistrates leave it to the probation officer to use his discretion in the matter of attempting conciliation before the legal issues are tried.

Mr. Petherick: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the Metropolitan police magistrates are fully aware of and are carrying out their obligations in this respect?

Sir S. Hoare: Yes, Sir, I think they certainly are, on the whole. If my hon. Friend has any information which he would like to send to me, I will convey it to the Chief Magistrate.

Oral Answers to Questions — ANTI-GOD CONGRESS.

Captain Ramsay: asked the Home Secretary whether he has granted any applications from foreigners desirous of attending the Anti-God Congress, which


has been arranged to be held at the Conway Hall on the 9th, 10th, and 11th of September?

Sir S. Hoare: The answer is in the negative.

Captain Ramsay: In view of the fact that at least two representative and responsible organisations are prepared to submit definite evidence of the fact that this Congress has been arranged in cooperation with the International Godless Movement at Moscow, will my right hon. Friend receive a deputation with a view to excluding the attendance of any foreigner?

Sir S. Hoare: I am quite ready to receive any information that my hon. and gallant Friend may wish to give me, but I have answered the question on the Paper, and have said that I have not had any application of this kind.

Mr. David Grenfell: When the right hon. Gentleman does receive the information, will the hon. and gallant Member give the authority upon which it is based?

Captain Ramsay: indicated assent.

Mr. Gallecher: On a point of Order. Is it in order for hon. Members, in questions, deliberately to misrepresent what is taking place at a particular gathering in London? Time and again such misrepresentations are made.

Mr. Speaker: It is certainly not in order, but I am sorry to say it is very often done.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHOPS (SUNDAY TRADING).

Miss Ward: asked the Home Secretary whether he will state his objection to investigating the complaints made by small shopkeepers against the operation of the Shops (Sunday Trading Restrictions) Act?

The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): My right hon. Friend is fully aware, from representations already made to him, of the circumstances and considerations on which these complaints are based, and he does not think that any useful purpose would be served at the moment by the investigations which my hon. Friend asks him to make. As was indicated in the

answer to my hon. Friend's question last Thursday, there are difficulties in the way of any proposal for the differential treatment of shops selling the same commodities; and it is clear, from other representations which have been received, that there would be very strong opposition to any such proposal.

Miss Ward: In view of the grievances that are arising from this Act, is my hon. Friend trying to get over the difficulties?

Mr. Rhys Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that there are tens of thousands of shopkeepers and scores of thousands of shop assistants who are eminently satisfied with the Measure?

Miss Ward: Can I have an answer to my supplementary question?

Mr. Leslie: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the trade associations representative of these small shopkeepers are whole-heartedly in favour of the Act, and that the agitation comes from wholesalers who pose as friends of the small trader?

Miss Ward: May I have an answer to my supplementary question?

Mr. Lloyd: One of my right hon. Friend's chief tasks is to endeavour to surmount difficulties, but the hon. Member will see, in view of the difference of opinion that has been indicated, that it is not easy.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH GLYCERINE MANUFACTURERS, LIMITED.

Mr. G. Strauss: asked the Home Secretary why investigation has recently been made by his Department into the affairs of the British Glycerine Manufacturers, Limited?

Sir S. Hoare: The investigation was made by the police at the request of the Home Office in connection with the case of an alien concerned in the company, which is under consideration.

Mr. Strauss: Will investigations be made into the political connections of this company as well as into its financial aspects, in order to ascertain whether this company and the group of companies connected with it is not a centre of Nazi propaganda and espionage in this country?

Sir S. Hoare: A full investigation is being made into all the circumstances. I could not add to my answer until I have received the result.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENAL REFORM.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Home Secretary when he proposes to introduce legislation dealing with penal reform?

Sir S. Hoare: I am not in a position to make any statement as to the date at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — AIR-RAID PRECAUTIONS.

Mr. Mabane: asked the Home Secretary when he anticipates that the schemes for the provision of storage accommodation for gas-masks by local authorities will be complete; and what length of time he anticipates will elapse between the completion of the schemes and the completion of storage accommodation for which they provide?

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend sent a circular to local authorities on the 4th, explaining the details of the arrangements they should make for storage and distribution of civilian respirators. He cannot forecast when all the local authorities will have completed their schemes and provided the necessary storage accommodation, but he is satisfied that they will do so as soon as possible.

Mr. Mabane: Do I understand that the local authorities may proceed at once to provide accommodation, without having their schemes specifically approved by the Department?

Mr. Lloyd: Schemes can be approved in part, and, therefore, storage accommodation schemes can be specifically approved.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the local authorities are making preparations to carry out this work?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir; my right hon. Friend is pressing them to do so as soon as possible.

Mr. Mabane: asked the Home Secretary whether any local authorities are at present defraying the travelling expenses of air-raid precautions personnel attending for training; and, if so, how many?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir; I understand that a number of local authorities are defraying the reasonable travelling expenses of air-raid precautions personnel attending for training, but my right hon. Friend has not so far thought it right to ask local authorities for a special return on this subject.

Mr. Mabane: Will the Under-Secretary consider, at some time in the near future, asking the local authorities for such information, in order that it may be generally available?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir, but they are so very busy with the Act at the present time that I should not like to ask them for it now.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in a number of the poorer local authorities there are large numbers of people who are perfectly willing to carry out this work at their own expense?

Mr. Mabane: asked the Home Secretary whether the first progress returns of the enrolment of personnel for air-raid precautions services have yet been received from local authorities; if not, when he anticipates these will be received; and whether meanwhile the figure of 1,987, representing the number of badges issued to air-raid wardens who have completed one month's service and are considered efficient in their duties, may be taken to represent the total number of trained and efficient air-raid wardens in the Kingdom?

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend proposes to arrange in the near future for periodical returns of personnel enrolled, but, in view of the pressure of more urgent air-raid precaution work. with which local authorities have been faced during the last few weeks, he has hesitated to trouble them generally with further requests for information on this subject at this stage. As regards the last part of the question, the figure mentioned by my hon. Friend was based on the latest information furnished to the Home Office, but my right hon. Friend is advised that it is clearly not up to date, and that the total number of trained wardens is very substantially in excess of the number of those who are known from the returns of the local authorities to have received badges.

Mr. Mabane: Will the Under-Secretary encourage local authorities to issue these


air-raid wardens' badges as soon as possible, in view of the encouragement to enrol that the wearing of these badges will give?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, Sir.

Colonel Nathan: asked the Home Secretary what arrangements are in course of being made in connection with air-raid precautions for a complete or partial black-out in the Metropolitan area or any part of it?

Mr. Lloyd: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave him on 10th February.

Colonel Nathan: Has any progress been made with these arrangements during that period?

Mr. Lloyd: Certainly progress has been made, but it is a matter for the local authorities to decide when they are ready to have exercises.

Mr. Ede: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there was a complete black-out at Fulham last night?

Colonel Nathan: Is it proposed to take any steps to co-ordinate the action of the various local authorities in the Metropolitan area?

Mr. Lloyd: A great deal of co-ordination is being maintained between the local authorities.

Colonel Nathan: asked the Home Secretary what arrangements are contemplated for the protection of schoolchildren in London actually in school premises at the time of an air raid?

Mr. Lloyd: This is a matter for the local authorities to consider, in the light of the recommendations contained in a circular of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Colonel Nathan: Is it not a fact that school premises are under the control not necessarily of the local authority, but of the local education authority, which is not necessarily the same thing? Where does responsibilty rest, therefore, for damage to school premises and protection of schoolchildren?

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member, I think, is under a misapprehension. The general authority is the local authority.

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Home Secretary whether he will arrange an air-raid wardens' instruction class for Members of Parliament within the precincts of the House or in the immediate vicinity?

Mr. Lloyd: Air-raid wardens are enrolled by local authorities, and they are allocated certain sectors by the authorities. For this reason, I do not think it would be appropriate to arrange an instruction class for air-raid wardens for Members of the House. The question, however, of arranging for courses of instruction in air-raid training for Members, on similar lines to the training given in Government Departments, is one to which my right hon. Friend to giving attention.

Sir Nicholas Grattan-Doyle: asked the Home Secretary whether he is in a position to make a statement as to expenditure incurred by statutory undertakings on air-raid precautions, and as to the proportion to be met as a national charge?

Mr. Lloyd: As my right hon. Friend indicated in his statement on 23rd December, public utility undertakings are expected, at their own cost, to fulfil the obligations of a good employer by providing training for their personnel and such protection for them and for their plant as is reasonable. Further, having regard to their responsibilities to the communities they serve, they should take such additional measures as are practicable to maintain supply. Towards the cost of these additional measures the Government will contribute, and discussions on the extent and conditions of the Government assistance have already begun.

Colonel Nathan: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that, under the provisions of the Statute, these bodies have the necessary statutory authority?

Mr. Lloyd: If they have not, there will, of course, have to be legislation.

Mr. Sandys: asked the Home Secretary whether the air-raid precautions circular, of 28th March, implies that the Government expect local authorities to provide air-raid shelters for all those persons whose houses do not provide adequate protection and which it is not practical to strengthen; and, if so, in view


of the great cost this will entail, whether he intends to make any additional grants to the local authorities for his purpose?

Mr. Lloyd: The circular explains that the Government has reached the conclusion that the wisest policy to aim at is one of dispersal and that, generally speaking, persons who at the time of a raid are in their own homes or in other buildings should remain there. The circular, however, indicates that local authorities should make a survey of their areas with a view to estimating the number of persons who may be in the streets or whose houses cannot give a reasonable degree of protection. Until the results of the surveys arc known, my right hon. Friend is not in a position to estimate the extent to which shelter accommodation may be required.

Mr. Sandys: Is my hon. Friend aware that these surveys are likely to take a great deal of time, and is not the matter one of urgency?

Mr. Lloyd: My right hon. Friend has drawn the special attention of local authorities to this matter and has urged them to press on with it as soon as possible.

Mr. Sandys: With regard to the second part of my question, is my hon. Friend aware that the great proportion of the houses in the East End of London fall into this category; and does he think that the local authorities, without additional assistance, will be able to provide shelters for so many people?

Mr. Lloyd: We must wait for the results of the survey by local authorities.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Has not the recent experience shown that the provision of shelters is the only alternative to large-scale spontaneous evacuation of the population; and will it not prove cheaper in the end to provide shelters, and will not the Government treat the matter as one of great urgency?

Sir Frank Sanderson: Does not my bon. Friend consider that the large number of questions which are being asked in connection with air-raid precautions are causing an uneasiness in the country which is totally unwarranted?

Mr. Sandys: asked the Home Secretary whether it has yet been finally decided whether to make use of the under-

ground railway in London as part of a scheme of air-raid shelters?

Mr. Lloyd: This matter is one that continues to have careful examination. The difficulties and risks of the use of the underground railway system as public shelters are formidable, but no final decision has been taken.

Mr. Sandys: Can my hon. Friend say why it has taken so long to reach this decision, which has been under consideration for a year so far as I know?

Mr. Lloyd: It is an extremely complicated question, but we are following the technical developments that may take place in other countries.

Mr. Thorne: Has the hon. Gentleman been able to find out——

Mr. Speaker: I would remind the hon. Member that there are 110 questions on the Paper.

Mr. R. S. Morrison: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether expenditure on air-raid precautions incurred by business firms in making tunnels, trenches, and ramparts for the safety of their employés will be treated for Income Tax purposes as allowable expenses?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir John Simon): How far such expenditure may be allowable in the computation of business profits for Income Tax purposes is a matter primarily for determination by the respective bodies of Income Tax Commissioners by reference to the facts of particular cases. So far as the Board of Inland Revenue are concerned, they would regard expenditure on, for example, elaborate underground galleries as capital expenditure and not allowable, but they would not object to the allowance of expenditure on simply-constructed trenches and on sandbag ramparts.

Colonel Nathan: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer introduce legislation to prevent public-spirited persons who embark on this expenditure being liable to Income Tax in respect thereof?

Sir J. Simon: I do not think I can do that.

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he proposes to introduce legislation to exempt air-raid shelters from liability to


assessment to Income Tax under Schedule A?

Sir J. Simon: My hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot anticipate my Budget statement, but I would refer him to the answers which I gave to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Hertford (Sir M. Sueter) on 25th November and 7th December last.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN PROPAGANDA.

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Home Secretary whether any action has been taken by the Metropolitan Police in connection with Nazi-financed organisations in this country formed to carry on propaganda against Belgian independence in Belgium; and whether the refusal to allow General Count von der Goltz to land at Dover on 12th March was because of his connection with one of these organisations, the European Press Agency?

Sir S. Hoare: I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary gave to the hon. Member for North Lambeth (Mr. G. Strauss) on Tuesday last.

Mr. Gallacher: Is the Minister not aware that the Germans, in view of the support they are getting from important people in this country, appear to think that they can treat this country with contempt; and is he not prepared to take some steps to stop what is going on?

Vice-Admiral Taylor and Viscountess Astor: rose——

Mr. Speaker: We can deal with only one question at a time.

Sir S. Hoare: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, on Tuesday last, informed the House that a full investigation is being made into this case, and until it is completed I cannot make any further statement.

Vice-Admiral Taylor: Is not the Home Secretary aware that there is a far more dangerous organisation—the Communist organisation—carrying on propaganda in this country, financed by Russia?

Viscountess Astor: Is it not true that Europe had never heard of Fascism or Hitlerism until it was threatened by Communism?

Mr. Kirkwood: You see the hon. Member for West Fire (Mr. Gallacher) laughs at the idea of the Communist organisation being a dangerous organisation.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONERS (TRANSPORT).

Mr. Day: asked the Home Secretary whether the responsible authorities have now been able to overcome the difficulties of transporting all prisoners by road, either before, during, or after their trial, in order that prisoners shall not be transported by train chained together in view of the public?

Sir S. Hoare: Standing orders provide that road transport should be used for the removal of prisoners in preference to rail, whenever possible. When prisoners are sent by rail everything possible is done by the prison authorities, in conjunction with the railway companies, to prevent their exposure to the public.

Mr. Day: Can the Minister say how many counties there are without prison vans?

Sir S. Hoare: Not without notice.

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY (PLEBISCITE VOTE, GREAT BRITAIN).

Mr. Arthur Henderson: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a German cruise-ship, "Wilhelm Gustloff," is to come to the Thames to be used as a polling station by those German citizens resident in the United Kingdom participating in the plebiscite on Sunday next; and whether, as such voting is compulsory, he will take steps to ensure that all such German citizens are allowed to exercise their votes without being subject to any interference or restraint?

Sir S. Hoare: According to the information in my possession, it is proposed that this ship shall put in at Tilbury on 10th April with a view to taking on board such German subjects resident here as may wish to record their vote in the plebiscite, and that the ship shall then proceed beyond the limits of British territorial waters before these votes are recorded. The voting will, therefore, take place outside British jurisdiction. There can, of course, be no question that German nationals in this country have, under our laws, complete freedom in this matter,


and if need should arise, the police would take proper steps to secure to them the freedom to which they are entitled under our laws.

Mr. Henderson: Is it not without precedent for a foreign Government to send a ship into the territorial waters of another country for the purpose of a plebiscite, and does it not constitute a most objectionable form of propaganda, having regard to the circumstances which have led to it?

Sir S. Hoare: I believe it is true that there is no precedent for action of this kind.

Mr. H. G. Williams: Is it not the case that in 1918 a quarter of a million soldiers then in Germany voted in our general election?

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Has an intimation been conveyed to the German Embassy that the visit of this ship should not be made the occasion for Nazi propaganda here?

Mr. Macquisten: Did not the same thing happen in America—[Interruption.]

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN JOURNALISTS (GREAT BRITAIN).

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: asked the Home Secretary what action it is proposed to take concerning the German journalists who have recently been found to be abusing their journalistic privileges in this country?

Sir S. Hoare: I do not know to what cases the hon. and gallant Member is referring. Perhaps he will send me particulars.

Lieut.-Commander Fletcher: Is it not the case that cases of two German journalists abusing their privileges have recently been reported by the Home Office to the Foreign Office?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir. As I said, if the hon. and gallant Member has any particulars, I shall be glad to consider them.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION ACTS.

Mr. Tinker: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the resolutions passed by trade unions asking

for a revision of the Workmen's Compensation Acts; and will he meet a deputation from them, along with Members of Parliament, to hear their views why this should be done?

Sir S. Hoare: I am well aware of the desire of the unions in this matter, and when I received a deputation on the subject from the Trades Union Congress last December I told them that I recognised that there are grounds for revision, and that, while I could not give any undertaking as to when it would be possible to introduce legislation, their representations would be carefully kept in mind. I shall, of course, be glad to consider any personal representations made to me by any hon. Member, but I doubt, in the circumstances, whether any useful purpose would be served by my receiving a further deputation.

Mr. Tinker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister is meeting with trade union representatives, in order that they might help in one direction, and can he help us in this direction, so that both can be considered together?

Sir S. Hoare: I am not sure whether the hon. Member is aware that I have already received a deputation from the Trades Union Congress on the subject. I am doubtful whether a further deputation would add to the information I have.

Mr. A. Bevan: Is not the inadequacy of the existing compensation proved by the fact that public assistance authorities all over the country now have to supplement workmen's compensation every week?

Mr. Cassells: Having regard to the recommendations in the Stewart Report, is it the right lion. Gentleman's intention to make a statement with regard to the alterations suggested in the report; and, if so, when?

Sir S. Hoare: I have already answered one or two questions on the subject and told the House that I do not think there would be time to deal with the recommendations in the present Session.

Mr. T. Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman take the House into his confidence, and say what are the obstacles in the way, apart from the question of Parliamentary time?

Sir S. Hoare: The obstacle, to a great extent, is the difficulty of finding Parliamentary time.

Mr. Bevan: We will sit longer, if necessary.

Sir Arnold Wilson: asked the Home Secretary the estimated number of persons within the scope of the Workmen's Compensation Acts whose employers were not covered by insurance in 1937 as compared with the estimate of 250,000 persons in 1914, as given to the Holman Gregory Committee in 1919?

Sir S. Hoare: I regret I am not in a position to furnish the estimate asked for by my hon. Friend. I would point out that the figure given by the Holman Gregory Committee, which was of a conjectural character, referred to the number of uninsured employers and not to the number of persons employed by such employers.

Sir A. Wilson: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is impossible to promote legislation or discuss it unless these figures are available to the House? Will he take further steps to ascertain the number of uninsured employers, from which a rough calculation of employés can be made?

Sir S. Hoare: I agree that this is the kind of information we should need in the event of the introduction of legislation.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPEAN REFUGEES.

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Home Secretary whether it is intended to provide all German and Austrian refugees admitted into this country with a card of identity under the refugees scheme of the League of Nations, which will enable them to remain in this country and also to leave for travel and other legitimate purposes?

Sir S. Hoare: So far as residence in this country is concerned, no special document is needed, apart from the certificate of registration which is issued to an alien who is required to register with the police in accordance with the provisions of the Aliens Order. If an alien who is resident here desires to travel abroad and is unable to obtain a national passport, he may apply to the Chief Inspector, Immigration Branch, Home Office, for a document of identity, which is similar to the document

of identity issued to German and "Nansen" refugees in conformity with the international arrangements to which His Majesty's Government is a party.

Mr. Henderson: Does that include the political refugees who are allowed to come into this country, from Austria, for example, as a result of what has taken place?

Sir S. Hoare: My answer was of a general character, and does include them.

Brigadier-General Sir Henry Croft: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that there will be no variation of the main rule laid down by his predecessor, that as long as we have a million unemployed in this country there will be no wholesale importation of refugees allowed?

Sir S. Hoare: I dealt with the position very fully in the statement I made a fortnight ago, and I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to what I said then.

Oral Answers to Questions — METROPOLITAN POLICE (EXPENDITURE).

Mr. McEntree: asked the Home Secretary whether he will consider setting up a joint board to control Metropolitan police expenditure, to include representatives of the Home Office, the Treasury, and of local authorities within the Metropolitan police area?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir. Responsibility for expenditure cannot be divorced from responsibility for administration, and the hon. Member's suggestion would involve legislation transferring responsibility for the Metropolitan Police Force to a joint board.

Mr. McEntee: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware of the very great dissatisfaction among Metropolitan borough councils, and in view of the fact that they have no knowledge whatever of what this money is being spent upon and no control over it, is it not time that this totalitarian form of organisation was abolished?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir. I am not aware of any such discontent among the great majority of the Metropolitan borough councils.

Mr. McEntee: The right hon. Gentleman cannot have read the Press.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPECIAL JURORS (BIRMINGHAM).

Mr. Higgs: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that in Birmingham, or that part of Birmingham which is in the county of Warwick, in order to provide the number of special jurors required, the authorities, to make up the qualification of £100, take the houses, rated at say £50 and over, and add the office premises occupied by them in the city to the value of the residence to make up the £100; and, in view of the fact that those connected with limited companies are not similarly treated and that the £100 qualification was fixed when the Act was passed to ensure the service of men of certain standing and intelligence, will he give instructions to the authorities to discontinue this practice?

Sir S. Hoare: I have no authority to give instructions in the matter or to determine a question of law. By Section 1 of the Jurors Act, 1922, it is open to any person proposed to be marked as a special juror who considers that he should not be so marked to apply to the registration officer for the removal of the mark and, in the event of his being dissatisfied with the registration officer's decision, to appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction.

Mr. Higgs: Is the Minister aware that certain jurors are being called upon once in two years, and is it not possible for him to use his influence to reduce the qualifying figure from £100 to £50?

Sir S. Hoare: No, Sir, I am bound by Statute, and I have no discretion in the matter whatever.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

PHYSICAL TRAINING.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware that, at a recent conference of the national organisers of physical training, it was stated that in the elementary schools there is a general shortage of suitable clothing such as shorts and shoes, storage and facilities for changing and washing; that until such deficiencies are removed physical training cannot reach a satisfactory standard of efficiency; that a number of teachers of physical training have reported that lack of proper nutrition in the case of a proportion of the children is an obstacle to the proper development

of this course; and will he, at an early date, take whatever action is necessary with a view to having food and clothing supplied to schools where required?

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (Mr. Kenneth Lindsay): My Noble Friend is aware that the subjects referred to by the hon. Member were discussed in an address given at a recent conference. In Circular 1450 the Board have emphasised the importance of suitable clothing and shoes for physical training and of a shower bath or rub down, and my Noble Friend is glad to say that an increasing number of local education authorities are using their powers to provide such clothing and facilities. As regards nutrition, local education authorities have power to provide meals and milk for all children who are unable by reason of lack of food to take full advantage of their education, including physical education. Teachers can exclude from the physical training course children who are unlikely to benefit from it or they can adapt the work to suit their needs and capabilities.

Mr. Stewart: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many local authorities cannot do what they would like in the interests of the children owing to the heavy burden of rates, and will he see that increased grants are given to these authorities with a view to meeting the situation?

Mr. Lindsay: The matter with regard to shoes and equipment is under consideration at the moment.

Mr. Stewart: What about the question of nutrition?

Mr. Lindsay: Local authorities have comprehensive powers as regards nutrition, and I have stated several times that we desire to see them fully and generously used.

Mr. Stewart: They have the powers, but they have not the money.

Mr. Sexton: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education how many physical instructors have been appointed since the national fitness campaign was instituted, and the number of such instructors who are pensioned and retired from the services; and also the number who are certificated teachers who had not received appointments in their profession?

Mr. Lindsay: The Board have no detailed information on the subject of such appointments except in the case of full-time instructor-leaders. Appointments of instructor-leaders require the approval of the Board and, if grant at the special rate of 75 per cent. is desired, have to be submitted through the area committees. Certain authorities are known to be considering such full-time appointments and one proposal has been put forward by a voluntary organisation, but so far they have not reached the stage of final approval.

Mr. Sexton: Will the Parliamentary Secretary see that unemployed teachers receive due consideration when making these appointments?

Mr. Lindsay: They are certainly eligible for these appointments.

MORAL TRAINING.

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he is aware of the considerable increase in juvenile crime according to the latest statistics available and that one-third of the number of

Statement showing the number of senior mixed and junior mixed departments of public elementary schools maintained by local education authorities, and the number of women head teachers employed in those departments on 31st March, in each of the years 1930–36.


England and Wales.


Year ended 31st March.
Senior Mixed.
Junior Mixed.


Number of Departments.
Number of women Head Teachers.
Number of Departments.
Number of Women Head Teachers.


1930
…
…
380
5
2,659
2,077


1931
…
…
505
7
3,285
2,436


1932
…
…
689
17
3,890
2,713


1933
…
…
817
13
4,379
2,897


1934
…
…
941
23
4,642
2,991


1935
…
…
991
18
4,906
3,106


1936
…
…
1,046
16
5,218
3,231

Mr. Ede: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education (1) how many schemes of reorganisation of elementary schools have been approved in the counties of West Suffolk and Salop, respectively;
(2) what percentage of the children in the counties of West Suffolk and Salop,

persons found guilty of larceny were boys and girls under the age of 17; and whether he proposes to take any steps to review that side of the educational system in the elementary and secondary schools which seeks to develop the character of the children?

Mr. Lindsay: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The great importance of moral training is fully appreciated by the Board, the local education authorities and the teaching profession, and the methods of such training are continually under review.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.

Mr. Adamson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education the numbers of senior mixed and junior mixed elementary schools in England and Wales in each of the years from 1930 to 1936; and the number of women head-teachers employed in such schools for each of the same years?

Mr. Lindsay: As the answer is in tabular form I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

respectively, are taught in schools to which reorganisation, as contemplated by the Hadow Report, has been applied?

Mr. Lindsay: I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a tabular statement answering these questions.

Following is the statement:


Table showing the position on 31st March, 1937, the latest date for which figures relating to school attendance are available:—


—
West Suffolk.
Salop.


Number of reorganised departments.
26
90


Total number of departments.
147
310


Number of children in reorganised departments.
2,681
10,777


Number of children in all departments.
10,807
26,327


Percentage of children in reorganised departments.
24·8
40·9

Since that date eight more departments have been reorganised in West Suffolk and 18 in Salop.

Mr. Ede: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education how many schemes of reorganisation have been approved in the borough of Reigate; and what percentage of elementary school children in the borough are taught in schools to which reorganisation, as contemplated by the Hadow Report, has been applied?

Mr. Lindsay: As the answer consists of a tabular statement I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The position on 31st March, 1937, the latest date for which figures relating to attendance are available, was as follows:


Number of reorganised departments
11


Total number of departments
23


Number of children in reorganised departments
1,373


Number of children in all departments
3,334


Percentage of children in reorganised departments
41

No departments have been reorganised since the above-mentioned date.

EXEMPTION (SCHOOL TERMS).

Mr. White: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether he has any information as to the extent to which local education authorities are co-operating in defining their attitude towards beneficial employment, in particular to what extent area committees have been set up to deal with such matters as the synchronisation of school terms?

Mr. Lindsay: The Board's information indicates that a substantial measure of consultation on this matter between neighbouring authorities is going on. Instances of this are afforded by conferences which have been held by the authorities in Yorkshire (West Riding), Greater London, Lancashire and Staffordshire.

Mr. Tomlinson: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Education whether, in order to facilitate the smooth working of the Education Act, 1936, in respect of the exemption clauses, he is prepared to consider the issuing of instructions to local education authorities embodying the principle of the unification of school terms?

Mr. Lindsay: The fixing of school terms is a matter for the local education authorities and the Board have no authority to issue instructions on the point. They have, however, in their Circular 1457 drawn the attention of local education authorities to the convenience of a system of uniform school terms for neighbouring authorities.

Mr. Tomlinson: Will the hon. Gentleman call the attention of his right hon. Friend to the fact that there are no education authorities which are not connected alongside other authorities, and that the necessity for this is imperative, if these regulations are to be carried out?

Mr. Lindsay: I can only say to the hon. Gentleman that that is not the view of the local education authorities. They have expressed no wish for central direction upon this point.

Oral Answers to Questions — RATING SYSTEM.

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been directed to the concern expressed in industrial parts of the country through the continued increase in rates; will be now appoint a Royal Commission to investigate the unsatisfactory nature of the rating system, the unfair incidence of local taxation, and the anomalous situation created through the effect of the present system of rating; or what other steps does he propose to take to deal with this problem?

The Prime Minister (Mr. Chamberlain): I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I gave to him on 17th


February last, and to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to a question put to him on the same date by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Epsom (Sir A. Southby).

Mr. Smith: Since that reply was given, has the Prime Minister noticed the concern which has been expressed by finance chairmen of municipalities in the North of England pointing out the difference between the municipal overhead charges in the North of England and the South of England, and will he reconsider the matter and consult the Minister of Health with a view to something being done?

The Prime Minister: The legislation to which my right hon. Friend referred will give him time to look into these questions.

Lieut.-Colonel Acland-Troyte: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great uneasiness in regard to rating in rural areas as well as in industrial areas, and will he exercise more economy and see that no unnecessary additional expenditure is forced upon local authorities by Government legislation?

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

RURAL COTTAGES.

Mr. Everard: asked the Minister of Health whether he will issue to each parish council in rural areas a memorandum on the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1938, so that these authorities may notify to their district council the number of agricultural cottages required in their villages?

The Minister of Health (Sir Kingsley Wood): I think parish councils can be relied upon to provide any information necessary for the purposes in question. As my hon. Friend is aware, every parish has representatives on each rural council, and I am forwarding to such councils full particulars of the new legislation.

Mr. Maxton: Has the right hon. Gentleman any objection to communicating to parish councils on this matter?

Sir. K. Wood: They are not, of course, directly responsible for the adminstration of the Act.

Mr. Maxton: But is it not permissible for the right hon. Gentleman to write a letter to these authorities?

Sir K. Wood: I would not mind, but I feel in some difficulty as they have no direct responsibility. Under the Act their representatives are on the rural district council, and I will communicate with the rural district councils on the matter.

STOKE-ON-TRENT.

Mr. E. Smith: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been directed to the statement made by the medical officer for Stoke-on-Trent, at a Ministry of Health inquiry on 29th March, 1938, in particular, that the city required 9,000 houses to meet the needs of the people; and, if so, will he take steps to expedite the provision of houses in the area?

Sir K. Wood: My attention has been drawn to this statement. The question of the provision of houses for the city under the Housing Acts is, in the first instance, one for the town council, but I can assure the hon. Member that any proposals which they put before me are dealt with as sympathetically and expeditiously as possible.

SLUM CLEARANCE.

Mr. Day: asked the Minister of Health what progress has been made in slum clearance by local authorities outside the London area since 1931; and the number of houses in those areas that have been demolished and other dwellings constructed?

Sir K. Wood: The slum clearance programmes of the local authorities outside London affect some 387,000 houses, and of these about 240,000 have so far been included in clearance and demolition orders. Up to the end of last year about 150,000 of these houses had been demolished and about 161,000 new dwellings provided for the persons so displaced.

Mr. Day: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the progress that has been made, or does he anticipate more favourable results during the lifetime of the present Parliament?

Sir K. Wood: I think the result is very good.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen a statement that the London County Council are holding up some of these slum clearance schemes?

FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT.

Mr. T. Johnston: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been drawn to the report by the Council for Art and Industry of the costs of furnishing and equipping a working-class home; and whether in conjunotion with the Secretary of State for Scotland, he will take steps to make known the existence of that report to the local authorities who, by Section 72 of the Housing Act, 1936, are empowered to provide furniture on easy terms to tenants who are in need?

Sir K. Wood: The reply to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and I recently opened an exhibition organised by the council. I will certainly consider on a suitable occasion whether further reference can usefully be made to this matter for the benefit of local authorities in England and Wales. As regards Scotland, I must refer the right hon. Gentleman to the Secretary of State.

Mr. Johnston: In view of the urgency of this matter and also that this means a saving of about 33½per cent. in costs to poor tenants who are compulsorily put into new houses, will the right hon. Gentleman not reconsider his attitude?

Sir K. Wood: I will consider the matter favourably, but what I want to avoid, if I can, is a separate communication on the matter, and I will take the opportunity of communicating with local authorities.

REPAIRS (COST).

Mr. Johnston: asked the Minister of Health whether he can give any estimate of the increased cost, over the cost of 1914, of repairs in the classes of house property affected by the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Acts; and whether he can give comparable figures for the years 1920, 1930, and 1937, respectively?

Sir K. Wood: As the answer is somewhat involved and contains a number of figures, I will, with the right hon. Gentleman's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

In the Majority Report of the Marley Committee the approximate comparative cost of repairs was estimated as follows:

1914
…
…
100


1920
…
…
250–280


1930
…
…
180–200

After making allowance for the higher standard of repairs and the increased age of the houses the Marley Committee concluded that the cost of repairs to working class houses in 1930 was about twice what it was in 1914. The majority of the Ridley Committee expressed the view in paragraph 106 of their report that the position at the date of their investigation was substantially the same as in 1930.

NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE.

Mr. Whiteley: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that school-leavers are being instructed by school teachers as to the type of approved society to join; and whether he will consult with the Board of Education with a view to informing school-leavers that this is the work of approved societies and not the teachers in the schools?

Sir K. Wood: The reply to the 'first part of the question is in the negative, but if the hon. Member will give me details of any cases of which he is aware I will gladly have inquiries made.

Mr. Rhys Davies: In view of the fact that there is some suspicion on this subject, is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to get into touch with the Board of Education on this matter?

Sir K. Wood: I must act not on suspicion but on facts, arid if the hon. Member will send me any information I will look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — LICENSED PREMISES (FIRE PRECAUTIONS).

Mr. Rostron Duckworth: asked the Minister of Health what is the practice of local authorities with regard to imposing conditions as to fire precautions upon clubs where dancing and alcoholic refreshment are available; and whether the same conditions are in general imposed as are already obligatory in the case of hotels, restaurants, and other licensed premises?

Sir K. Wood: I regret that the information desired by my hon. Friend is not available, but if he has any particular case in mind I shall be glad to make inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING.

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider the advisability of holding an official inquiry into the working of compensation and betterment under the Town Planning Act?

Sir K. Wood: I do not think that there is sufficient experience at present to justify an official inquiry of the kind contemplated by the hon. Member.

Mr. Mander: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the advisability of holding such an inquiry?

Sir K. Wood: Certainly. I will watch the matter carefully and see if anything can be done.

Oral Answers to Questions — RURAL COUNCILS (URBAN POWERS).

Mr. G. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health in what rural districts and parishes in rural districts urban powers have been granted under the Public Health and Local Government Acts in the last five years; the population and rateable value of the areas concerned; and any available information as to the cost to a local authority of obtaining such powers?

Sir K. Wood: Urban powers are granted in a considerable number of cases, and I will send the hon. Member particulars of typical instances. The cost of obtaining such powers is negligible.

Oral Answers to Questions — ASSISTANT SANITARY INSPECTOR, DORSET.

Major Milner: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the Dorset County Council have recently advertised the appointment of an assistant inspector to carry out duties under the Milk and Dairies Order and the Housing (Rural Workers) Acts at a commencing salary of £150 per annum, rising subject to satisfactory service to £250 by annual increments of £10, applicants for which must possess the sanitary inspector's certificate; whether he is satisfied that the salary offered is adequate remuneration for the services of a properly qualified sanitary inspector; and, if not, will he take steps to see that a higher remuneration is paid for these services?

Sir K. Wood: I am aware of the terms of the advertisement to which the hon. Member refers, but the appointment is not one which requires my approval. The salary payable is a matter within the discretion of the county council.

Major Milner: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain what an "assistant inspector" is, when according to my information no other inspector has been appointed?

Sir K. Wood: I will make inquiries.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AIRCRAFT (IMPORTS).

Mr. Everard: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the number of foreign aircraft imported into this country in the years 1936–37 and 1937–38, respectively, and the amount of duty collected in both cases?

Sir J. Simon: The figures for the financial years 1936–37 and 1937–38 are not readily available. The following table gives the particulars for the calendar years 1936 and 1937:

No. of aircraft imported
Approximate duty collected.


Year 1936
…
22
£6,000


Year 1937
…
37
£30,000

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL AUTHORITIES (EXPENDITURE).

Mr. H. G. Williams: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state approximately the aggregate of the rate-borne and grant-borne expenditure of the local authorities in Great Britain during the years 1936–37; and what increase this showed over 1926–27?

Sir J. Simon: Only roughly approximate figures can be given for the year 1936–37. Taking as a basis the estimate of rates collected and the Government grants as shown in the Appropriation Accounts, the aggregate of rate-borne and grant-borne expenditure of local authorities in Great Britain for the year 1936–37 was about £350,000,000, and the increase for that year over the figure for 1926–27 was about £70,000,000.

Mr. Williams: In view of this large and dangerous increase, does His Majesty's Government contemplate giving any advice to local authorities?

Mr. Bevan: Does it not include expenditure on housing?

Sir J. Simon: I cannot say.

Mr. Williams: Is it not the case that this expenditure does not include any capital expenditure at all, and does not include a single penny expenditure on housing?

Oral Answers to Questions — STATIONERY OFFICE (PRINTING WORKS).

Mr. Roland Robinson: asked he Financial Secretary to the Treasury why the estimated capital expenditure on purchase of machinery for the Stationery Office printing works for 1938 shows an increase of over 33 per cent. as against 1937; by how much does this estimated expenditure of £44,000 exceed the amount of depreciation allowed in, he accounts for 1937; and why this increase in plant has been sanctioned in view of the recommendations of the last statutory inquiry on the subject which opposed further extension of the Stationery Office printing works?

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Lieut.-Colonel Colville): Of the total estimated capital expenditure on the purchase of machinery for the Stationery Office printing works in 1938, about £30,000 is required for replacements. This figure compares with £26,000 which was provided for the same purpose in the 1937 Estimates. The amount to be allowed for depreciation in the 1937 Trading Accounts is still subject to consideration. The balance of £14,000 provided in the 1938 Estimates is required for expansion of the telephone directory. This is in no way inconsistent with the recommendations of the Gretton Committee, which recognised that special work of first-rate importance such as the directory should be undertaken by the State printing works.

Oral Answers to Questions — FLOODS, HORSEY.

Viscount Elmley: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give the reasons for, and the effect of, the further flooding at Horsey, Norfolk, on Sunday, 3rd April; and state what assistance will be given by his Department to the East Norfolk Catchment Board in preventing its recurrence?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I regret to say that another exceptionally high tide accompanied by a north-west wind occurred last week-end at Horsey, with the result that a large portion of the newly-constructed defences and embankment were penetrated. The catchment board are considering the best course to adopt to meet the new situation, and officers of my Department have been in consultation with them on the site. The board have already been informed that a Government grant of 6o per cent. will be made towards the cost of the approved remedial works originally estimated at £16,000.

Viscount Elmley: Will my right hon. Friend give very careful consideration to the resolution which the catchment board passed at their meeting yesterday?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, I will gladly give sympathtic consideration to the resolution and to any other communication from the catchment board.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUGAR INDUSTRY (REORGANISATION) ACT, 1936.

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Agriculture the amount of the supplementary payment made in connection with the crop of home-grown sugar-beet for 1937; how the amount paid compares with the maximum permissible under the Sugar Industry (Reorganisation) Act, 1936; and whether the yield of beet in Great Britain for 1937 was the lowest since 1931?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The amount of the supplementary payment in respect of poverty of the crop of home-grown sugar beet in 1937 was £141,239, which was approximately the maximum permissible under the Sugar Industry (Reorganisation) Act, 1936. The answer to the last part of the question is in the affirmative.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMONS (SELECT COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS).

Mr. Mander: asked the Minister of Agriculture when it is proposed to introduce a Bill to give effect to the recommendations of the Select Committee on Commons?

Mr. W. S. Morrison: This matter is under consideration, but I am afraid it


will not be possible to introduce legislation during the present Session.

Mr. Mander: Is it contemplated that this reform will be one of the Government's Measures next Session?

Mr. Morrison: I am very anxious to get time for it as soon as I can.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL INDUSTRY.

SAFETY IN MINES (COMMISSION'S REPORT.

Mr. W. Joseph Stewart: asked the Secretary for Mines when the report of the Royal Commission on safety in mines will be completed?

The Secretary for Mines (Captain Crookshank): I would refer to the answer I gave on Tuesday in reply to a similar question by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member.

DUMBRECK COLLIERY (FATAL ACCIDENT INQUIRY).

Mr. Cassells: asked the Secretary for Mines (1) whether he is aware that no evidence was adduced from his Department's inspectors at the fatal accident inquiry held in Stirling Sheriff Court in connection with the Dumbreck colliery disaster; and is he now prepared to institute a full public inquiry into the whole facts pertaining to the underground and surface conditions in the said colliery;
(2) the result of reports received by his Department from His Majesty's inspectors of mines relative to the conditions pertaining in Kelly's Return and the electrical system in operation in Dumbreck colliery, Stirlingshire, on the date of the disaster there when nine men lost their lives?

Captain Crookshank: I am satisfied that the fatal accident inquiry into this lamentable accident was full and searching, and I do not think it would be likely to serve any useful purpose for me to set up a second court of public inquiry. I appreciate, however, that there are technical questions of importance in regard to which it is desirable that the findings of the Sheriff Court and any recommendations of His Majesty's inspectors should

be made known throughout the industry without delay. I am accordingly instructing the Divisional Inspector for Scotland and the Electrical Inspector of Mines to make a special report under Section 82 of the Coal Mines Act, 1911; and it is my intention that this report shall be published as soon as possible.

Mr. Cassells: In view of the fact that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's inspectors were at the scene of the accident immediately afterwards, does he think it fit and proper that the jury sitting in judgment on this case should have been deprived of the information which the inspectors undoubtedly possessed?

Captain Crookshank: It is not for me to make any criticism of how the case was conducted, but no evidence was given by the inspectors because they were not called upon to do so by the Procurator-Fiscal.

Mr. Cassells: Is it not within the knowledge of the Minister that the inspectors could voluntarily have produced themselves as witnesses, and that in point of fact they got the opportunity of so doing, but refused?

Captain Crookshank: No, Sir, I am informed that they were not called upon.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

MENTALLY AND PHYSICALLY DEFECTIVE CHILDREN, DUMBARTON.

Mr. Kirkwood: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is aware that it is proposed to accommodate the physically and mentally defective children from Dumbarton, Helensburgh, and the Vale of Leven, in College Street School, Dumbarton; and, in view of the fact that this school was condemned by the Scottish Education Department as unsuitable for normal children, that interior reconstruction cannot remove the defects of the cramped nature of the site and the lack of space for playgrounds, that the school is adjacent to a congested slum area and the local cattle market, which makes the street crossing dangerous for these children, and that the Dumbarton school management committee has protested against the scheme, he will reconsider his decision to approve the scheme, with a view to providing a school more in accord


with the terms of the memorandum explanatory of the Draft Day Schools (Scotland) Code, issued by the Scottish Education Department?

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): Although the College Street premises were regarded as unsuitable for a school of 600 normal pupils, my tight hon. Friend is satisfied, on the advice of his technical advisers, that, with the alterations now being carried out, satisfactory accommodation and playground space will be provided for a maximum of 160 mentally and physically defective children. At present there are about 100 such children in attendance at the High Street School; I am informed that all these children will be conveyed to and from College Street by bus, and that therefore no danger from street crossing will arise. My right hon. Friend is aware of the school management committee's protest, but he does not feel that he would be justified in now asking the responsible local education authority to change their considered plan.

Mr. G. A. Morrison: In view of the admittedly unsatisfactory nature of the surroundings of this school, can my hon. Friend say whether it is a permanent or a temporary arrangement?

Mr. Wedderburn: I do not know whether it is a temporary arrangement. Although the environment is certainly not ideal, I think that the accommodation is much better than that of the High Street School where they are now.

Mr. Westwood: Are we to understand that normal and mentally defective children are to be taught in one building, and if so, is that satisfactory?

Mr. Kirkwood: Are the Scottish Office satisfied that a school which was condemned by them as unfit for normal children is fit for mentally defective children?

Mr. Wedderburn: The Department decided that it was unsuitable for 600 children, because there was not enough accommodation for that number, but it is proposed to use it now for only 100, and with the alterations now being carried out, we have not any just ground for interfering with the local education authority's decision. The area of the site is

in excess of the Department's specified minimum requirements.

Mr. Westwood: May I repeat my supplementary question? Included in these 100 children there are mentally defective children: are they all to be taught in the one building? If so, is that accepted by the Scottish Education Department as being satisfactory?

Mr. Wedderburn: I should be glad if the hon. Member would put that question on the Paper. I think they are to be taught in the one building, but I do not know whether it will be in the same part of it. I would like to have notice of the question.

MARRIAGE (SCOTLAND) BILL.

Mr. R. Gibson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether it is the intention of the Government to learn the views of the legal or other bodies interested in the Marriage (Scotland) Bill before the date for the Second Reading is fixed?

Mr. Wedderburn: My right hon. Friend will be glad to consider any representations which legal or other bodies may desire to make about the Bill. No date for the Second Reading has yet been decided upon.

Mr. Gibson: Will the date of the Second Reading be so arranged that it will be possible for hon. Members to be made aware of the views of legal and other bodies with regard to this highly important Bill?

Mr. Wedderburn: I cannot give an undertaking as to the date of the Second Reading, but I gather it is not likely to take place for some time, and I think there will be plenty of opportunity for everybody's views to be heard.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Mr. Attlee: Will the Prime Minister state what will be the business for next week, the date of the Easter Recess and the business for the week following the Recess?

The Prime Minister: The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday: Second Reading of the Bacon Industry Bill.

Tuesday and Wednesday: Report and Third Reading of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Bill.

Thursday: The House will meet at 11 a.m., when we shall take the Motion for the Easter Adjournment.

The House will meet again after the Recess on Tuesday, 26th April, when, as I have already announced, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will open his Budget.

On Wednesday, 27th April, and Thursday, 28th April: General Debate on the Budget Resolutions.

Friday, 29th April, Private Members' Bills will be considered.

On any day, if there is time, other Orders may be taken.
Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 248; Noes, 125.

Division No. 167.]
AYES.
[3.47 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Denville, Alfred
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Doland, G. F.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Donner, P. W.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Albery, Sir Irving
Dower, Major A. V. G.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Duckworth, Arthur (Shrewsbury)
Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.)


Allen, Lt.-Col. Sir W. J. (Armagh)
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)
Leech, Sir J. W.


Apsley, Lord
Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.



Assheton, R.
Duggan, H. J.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Duncan, J. A. L.
Levy, T.


Atholl, Duchess of
Eastwood, J. F.
Lewis, O.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Eokersley, P. T.
Lindsay, K. M.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thane)
Edmondsen, Major Sir J.
Lipson, D. L.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Llewellin, Colonel J. J.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portem'h)
Ellis, Sir G.
Lloyd, G. W.


Beechman, N. A.
Elliston, Capt. G. S.
Loftus, P. C.


Bernays, R. H.
Elmley, Viscount
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Bird, Sir R. B.
Emmolt, C. E. G. C.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Blair, Sir R.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
MConnell, Sir J.


Boyee, H. Leslie
Erskine-Hill, A. G.
McCorquodale, M. S.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Everard, W. L.
McKie, J. H.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Fildes, Sir H.
Macnamara, Major J. R. J.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Fleming, E. L.
Macquisten, F. A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Magnay, T.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Bullock, Capt. M.
Gluekstein, L. H.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Marsden, Commander A.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Grant-Ferris, R.
Maxwell, Hon. S. A.


Butcher, H. W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)


Cartland, J. R. H.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Carver, Major W. H.
Grimston, R. V.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry


Cary, R. A.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Castlereagh, Viscount
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Cazalet, Capt. V. A. (Chippenham)
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hacking, Rt. Hon. D. H.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Channon, H.
Hannah, I. C.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hartington, Marquess of
Palmer, G. E. H.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Harvey, Sir G.
Patrick, C. M


Clarke, Frank (Dartford)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Peat, C. U.


Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Petherick, M.


Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Pilkington, R.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Higgs, W. F.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Pownall, Lt.-Col. Sir Assheton


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Procter, Major H. A.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Howitt, Dr. A. B.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Crooke, Sir J. S.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ramsbotham, H.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hulbert, N. J.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Cross, R. H.
Hunter, T.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Crossley, A. C.
Kurd, Sir P. A.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Crowder. J. F. E.
Hutchinson, G. C.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)


Cruddas, Col. B.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Reid, J. S. C. (Hillhead)


Culverwell, C. T.
Joel, D. J. B.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Keeling, E. H.
Remer, J. R.


De la Bère, R.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)




Ropner, Colonel L.
Somervell. Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)
Warrender, Sir V.


Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Salmon, Sir I.
Storey, S.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Salt, E. W.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Samuel, M. R. A.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Wells, S. R.


Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw'h)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Sanderson, Sir F. B.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Sandys, E. D.
Tasker, Sir R. I.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Savery, Sir Servington
Tate, Mavis C.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Scott, Lord William
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Selley, H. R.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Withers, Sir J. J.


Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Thomas, J. P. L.
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Titchfield, Marquess of
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Touche, G. C.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Tree, A. R. L. F.



Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)
Wakefield, W. W.
Captain Waterhouse and Mr. Purness.


Smithers, Sir W.
Walker-Smith, Sir J.





NOES.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Grenfell, D. R.
Parkinson, J. A.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Pethiek-Lawrence, Rt. Han. F. W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Pritt, D. N.


Adamson, W. M.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Ridley, G.


Amman, C. G
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Riley, B.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hardie, Agnes
Ritson, J.


Banfield, J. W.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Barnes, A. J.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Barr, J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Sexton, T. M.


Batey, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Shinwell, E.


Bellenger, F. J.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Silkin, L.


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.

Holdewerth, H.
Simpson, F. B.


Benson, G.
Hopkin, D.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Bevan, A.
John, W.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Buchanan, G.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Burke, W. A.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Stephen, C.


Cassells, T.
Kelly, W. T.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Chater, D.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cluse, W. S.
Kirkwood, D.
Thorne, W.


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Thurtle, E.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Lathan, G.
Tirker, J. J.


Dalton, H.
Leonard, W.
Tomlinsan, G.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Leslie, J. R.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lunn, W.
Walkden, A. G.


Day, H.
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
Walker, J.


Debbie, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Watkins, F. C.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacLaren, A.
Watson, W. McL.


Ede, J. C.
Mander, G. le M.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Marshall, F.
White, H. Graham


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mathers, G.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Maxton, J.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Milner, Major J.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Foot, D. M.
Montague, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Gallacher, W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Gardner, B. W.
Muff, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Garro Jones, G. M.
Nathan, Colonel H. L.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Naylor, T. E.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Noel-Baker, P. J.



Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Owen, Major G.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Paling, W.
Mr. Groves and Mr. Charletom.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Parker, J.



Question put, and agreed to.

BILLS REPORTED.

ROMFORD GAS BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

BRIXHAM GAS AND ELECTRICITY BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

IRWELL VALLEY WATER BOARD BILL.

Reported, with Amendments, from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

SWINTON AND PENDLEBURY CORPORATION BILL.

Reported, with Amendments [Title amended], from the Committee on Unopposed Bills (with Report on the Bill).

Bill, as amended, and Report to lie upon the Table; Report to be printed.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Rating and Valuation (Postponement of Valuations) Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill, intituled, "An Act to confer powers upon the London County Council and other authorities; and for other purposes." [London County Council (General Powers) [Lords.]

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills.

Orders of the Day — SEA FISH INDUSTRY BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Offences by corporations.)

Where any offence under Part I or Part V of this Act committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of, or to be attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the body corporate, he, as well as the body corporate, shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.56 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The necessity for this new Clause arises from a pledge which I gave, to reconsider a point raised in Committee by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander). Under Clause 28 of the Bill as it stands, in the case of corporations who connive at offences by their servants penalties are inflicted on the officers of the corporations only in respect of offences against Part I of the Measure. The right hon. Gentleman pointed out that it was only right that they should also be liable for offences against Part V of the Measure, which deals with illegal fishing. It is a matter of drafting, and we propose that this new Clause should be substituted for Clause 28 as considered in the Standing Committee.

Clause added to the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Penalties for contravention of provisions of marketing schemes.)

Any person registered under a marketing scheme who contravenes, or fails to comply with, any provisions of the scheme shall for each such contravention or failure be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds.—[Mr. Foot.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

3.59 p.m.

Mr. Dingle Foot: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
In order to understand the purpose of this new Clause it is necessary that hon. Members should turn to Clause 12. They will see that Clause 12 reads:
Any marketing scheme may provide for the following matters.…
(c) for requiring the board to impose on, and to recover from, any person registered under the scheme who contravenes or fails to comply with any provision of the scheme, such monetary penalties as may be specified in the scheme.
There is a similar provision in Clause 19 with regard to the co-operative schemes that may be set up in various parts of the country. In other words, this is a provision similar to that which is already contained in the Agricultural Marketing Acts. The Marketing Board under this Bill is to be empowered to impose penalties for contravention of the scheme. I am not sure that hon. Members who have not come in contact with these things quite realise what is happening now under the Agricultural Marketing Acts. Take the example of the Milk Board. I am not saying anything against the fairness of the members of that board when they discharge these functions. I have no doubt that they exercise their right to impose penalties with every desire to be fair and to do substantial justice, but I would remind the House of what happens on these occasions. The board sits in London and it imposes very heavy fines indeed on producers and on producer-retailers. What happens is that a producer in some distant part of the country receives a letter telling him he is charged with some breach of the scheme and summoning him to appear after very short notice before the board. If he does not appear he is dealt with in his absence and a fine is imposed. I am not suggesting that the board wishes in any way to be unfair, for I am sure that that is not the case. But there are two points that I would bring to the notice of hon. Members.
Under this procedure, first, the ordinary rules of evidence do not apply. The board sits in London and only in London, and it is from that fact that the hardship arises. After all, when we are dealing in this country with the administration of justice we are at the very greatest pains to bring justice as near as we can to the doors of the people themselves. We have a whole complicated system of sending judges on assize to the


various counties, of quarter sessions and county courts, and of police courts in every district in England. In Scotland we have a system of sheriffs and sheriff-substitutes sitting in every centre of any size, because we have always recognised that it is a very great hardship if a man cannot obtain justice in his own county, or if possible in his own district. If a charge is brought against him he is entitled to have it heard and to make his defence in that part of the country in which he happens to live. For instance, the other day when we were dealing with the new divorce legislation it was pointed out by hon. Members what a considerable hardship it was if, under the rules as they stood, defended cases could not be taken on circuit. But under the Agricultural Marketing Acts you have a board which sits in London and which does not attempt to meet the convenience of the people who are charged with breaches of the scheme by sitting anywhere else. Therefore it may be the case, and it is the case, that you will have milk producers from as far afield as Devon or Northumberland who will have to come and appear, if they want to appear at all, before a board which sits a few yards from this House.
Under this Bill a similar scheme is being proposed for the fishing industry. As I follow it, the scheme might include the whole of the United Kingdom. That is to say, if the procedure follows the lines of the Agricultural Marketing Act scheme, as presumably it will do, the Board is to sit in London to impose penalties on fishermen in every part of the country. The offence may be comparatively trivial; it may be simply some breach of those provisions of the scheme which deal with the way in which fish is to be sold or exposed for sale by fishermen hundreds of miles away, it may be in Newlyn or Polperro or in the far north of Scotland. A fisherman in one of these places may find that at few days' notice he is called upon to appear before a Board which is sitting in London. Of course from the nature of his calling it will be impossible in some cases for him to appear, but even if he is not at sea of course the expense in a great many cases will absolutely prohibit the fisherman from being there to make his own defence. Even under the Agricultural Marketing scheme people from distant

parts of the country are sometimes not represented and are not present to make their own defence simply because the expense of coming to London is too great. Even supposing you have the situation that a man has to come to London in order to appear before the Board, and supposing there is no foundation for the charge and that the Board decides that there has in fact been no contravention of the scheme, if the scheme is to follow the lines of the Agricultural Marketing scheme there will be no power to give that man any expenses or costs. He will have to bear the burden of coming to London, and it may be of bringing witnesses to London, in order to meet a charge which proves to be wholly unfounded.
There is one other objection to the procedure proposed in the Bill. It will be observed that in Clause 12, paragraph (c), there is a reference to
Such monetary penalties as may be specified in the scheme.
I must say that this appears to me to be rather a glaring example of the kind of legislation which is continually being thrown at us nowadays. This House used to be very jealous of conferring upon anyone the power to impose penalties, but now it is going to be left to the people who draw up this scheme and the Minister who confirms the scheme to decide what penalty shall be imposed. I shall no doubt be told that before the scheme can become law it has to be placed before both Houses of Parliament and receive affirmative assent. That is quite true. But, of course, as we all know, these schemes come before us as a whole; we can only accept or reject them outright, and it is impossible for any detail of them to be amended. When the scheme comes before us, even if the House is of opinion, as it may be, that the penalties proposed are out of all proportion to the offences with which they are to deal, nevertheless the House will in effect be quite powerless to alter the penalties.
In my new Clause I propose to substitute for the procedure which we have had under the Agricultural Marketing Acts a reference to the courts of summary jurisdiction. I am not always an admirer of the way in which these tribunals do their work, but for this purpose they have two advantages. In the first place their proceedings are governed by the


ordinary rules of evidence. Hearsay evidence is not permitted as it is before a marketing board. Secondly, these courts are close at hand to the people concerned. You may have the difficulty that a man appears before a board in London and he does not know the particulars of the charge that he has to meet. All that he gets is a letter telling him he is charged with a certain contravention of the scheme at a certain time. There is no definition; he is not given any information to show the precise nature of the charge. Suppose that as the inquiry proceeds certain allegations are made by the inspector or official, and in order to answer them it is necessary that he should call, in the case of a fisherman, some member of his crew, or in the case of a fishmonger an assistant or some one of that kind, it would be a perfectly simple matter in a court of summary jurisdiction sitting in the man's own district, but such a thing will be clearly impossible if a man has come to London from somewhere in Cornwall or other distant part of the country. Under the procedure adopted here it is quite impossible for a man who is brought before the board to know the precise details of the charge he has to meet or what witnesses he is likely to need.
Therefore, although what I suggest may not be the ideal procedure, at any rate it is greatly preferable to that which is now carried out under the Agricultural Marketing Acts and that which it is presumably intended to adopt under this Bill. I make no sort of apology for taking a certain amount of time in bringing this question forward. It seems to me to be a very important matter and a matter of elementary justice. We spent a good deal of time recently in passing law reform Acts, and even in the last day or two there has come from another place another Bill dealing with law reform. These various Measures are all designed to make the administration of justice more efficient, cheaper and more easily accessible. Yet at the same time we are abandoning all our ideas as to the ordinary canons of justice when we deal with marketing boards. A marketing board has power to impose these very considerable penalties—penalties greatly in excess of those which are ordinarily imposed by courts of summary jurisdiction, penalties which very often in the case of the Agricultural Marketing Board run well into three figures, penalties which

in some cases are absolutely ruinous for the small producer-retailer. It is now proposed that we shall have a similar system for the fishing industry. I hope that either the Minister will be able to accept my new Clause or give us some assurance that the system which has been maintained in regard to agricultural marketing is not going to be applied to the fishing industry.

Mr. Graham White: I beg to second the Motion.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. Beechman: I would like, in a very few words, to support what has been so forcibly said. It seems to me to raise a question of fundamental importance, both in relation to justice and in relation to the liberty of the subject. I would like to add to what has been said that in the case of this Board you have a tribunal that is not only judge but prosecutor at the same time. That is a system which is absolutely alien to our notions of justice and it should not be allowed to continue any further. We have a chance now of calling a halt to this very sad process. I would like to reinforce what has been said in regard to the terrible hardship inflicted on poor people who are supposed to come from these small ports and fishing villages in Cornwall all the way to London, if they are to be heard at all. If they do not come they are fined, and very many of them perhaps, intelligent as they are, are not what is called good scholars and are unable even to write a letter explaining their case.
This is a matter which, I feel, this House must take into consideration very seriously indeed if hardship is to be avoided and if this scheme is to be a success, because this injustice is so serious that, if it continues, it will be a danger to the scheme as a whole. It will bring the whole scheme into disrepute and will prevent us from organising our industries in the way that we now feel we ought to do. It seems to me that our part, in these times of transition, is to insist upon such organisation as is necessary and, at the same time, to make sure that we preserve our liberties.

4.16 p.m.

Sir Stafford Cripps: I am not very familiar with the terms of this Bill, but I am fairly familiar with the sort of subject matter with which this new Clause


deals, and I should like to add my word in order to press upon the Minister acceptance of this new Clause. It is always a very dangerous thing to give administrative bodies of this sort the right to fine people under their jurisdiction, and if that is to be done at all, it should only be done with the very greatest safeguards and only in particular cases. Where you have an administrative body dealing, for instance, with such people as large coal companies, or something of that kind, it may be that such a procedure is tolerable, because powerful companies of that kind can always be represented and they can have their cases heard properly. This administration in such cases may be less open to objection, but in a case of this kind. where you are dealing with a very scattered and very worthy population, but with people who are not accustomed, fortunately, to spend their time in courts of law or police courts, it is highly desirable that, if they are to be subjected to penalties, they should be given every proper opportunity of having their case and their defence put and heard in circumstances which make it practical.
Clearly, it cannot be practical under these circumstances, unless these marketing boards are to have some itinerant courts in which these people can be heard on the spot, and it would not be desirable to set up another set of courts to administer justice side by side with the existing courts in the various districts, courts which are, or at least should be, familiar with the sort of problems which, owing to their location, are likely to have to be dealt with under these marketing schemes. It therefore seems to us to be essential, if justice is to be done, that these matters should be dealt with in the local courts, in the localities where those who are accused are living and working at the time. The cost of a fisherman or fish salesman in a small way coming up to London, perhaps having to stay in London, having to get advice from someone, it may be, in London as to how he should put his case or as to what he should do, having, if he wants to be successful in rebutting an unjust charge, to get witnesses up in order to prove that he has not done this or that—the cost of all this would obviously make it impossible for any such person to put forward his defence in a proper way.
Moreover, if he is justified in that defence, having been able to get up to London, he will then find himself burdened with an enormously heavy expenditure, having justified himself, which is a most undesirable state of affairs in any form of the administration of justice. Unfortunately, it is nearly always the case that defendants who are successful yet have to pay and do not ever in fact recover what it has cost them, either in waste of time or in waste of money. But at least one wants to aim, in any method of administering justice, at the smallest possible burden falling upon people who are rightly acquitted of something of which they have been accused, and the only way which we on this side can see in which that can be done is to allow the administration, as regards alleged infringements of these marketing schemes, to be tried in the local courts, to give them the jurisdiction and not to give it to the administrative body. In that way you will get over the trouble, which has been mentioned already, of the administrative body being prosecutor and judge in the same cause, and you will also get over the trouble of making justice so far removed in distance from those who are under these circumstances suffering under it that it really becomes not justice at all, but injustice. We hope, for these reasons, that the Minister will accept the Clause.

4.21 p.m.

Mr. Petherick: I find myself in the happy though strange position of being able to agree wholly with the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), and also, even more strangely, with the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), who has just sat down. The hon. Member who moved this Clause is frequently, in this House, standing out for what he considers, and what I too very often consider, to be the liberty of the subject. If I may say so without disrespect to hon. Members on that bench, if only they always directed their energies as vigilance committees to preventing Governments from overriding these liberties on occasions, they would be doing nothing but the most admirable service to the State.

Mr. Foot: Nobody would have put down this Clause if we had not.

Mr. Petherick: There is a further Amendment to Clause 12 on the Order


Paper in the name of the hon. Member which seems to me to be generally sound, but I think the penalty that the hon. Member proposes is not sufficient. It is more than sufficient for the small person who infringes one of the provisions of some marketing scheme, but it is very likely, and indeed certain, that schemes which are to be introduced will apply, for instance, to Hull trawlers. There are many rich companies engaged in trawling from Hull to whom a £25 penalty would in fact be nothing, and it would be worth their while to infringe the scheme if they had to pay such a small penalty. Therefore, I feel that the penalty is not quite sound in its present form, but I heartily support the intention behind it, and I hope that, as there has been this happy harmony so far in the House, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries will not, by putting a spanner into the machinery, engage in Governmental sabotage of the proposed new Clause.

4.24 p.m.

Viscountess Astor: I do not mind agreeing with the Opposition when I think they Lire right. In fact, I would rather go with people on the opposite benches when I think they are right than with people on my own side when I think they are wrong. This matter is of vital interest to us who represent these fisher folk. We understand that it will be almost impossible for them to put their grievances before the board adequately under the present procedure, and we feel very strongly about it. The people whom we represent also feel very strongly about it, and I hope very much that the Minister will consider the new Clause favourably, and accept it.

4.25 p.m.

Sir Arnold Wilson: Almost the only industry not represented in my constituency is the fishing industry, but I am greatly influenced by the arguments which have been brought forward on this subject, for I have had experience of the results of this system to which objection has been taken as applied to marketing schemes brought forward in connection with milk and potatoes. I know that a feeling of injustice is being caused by the very nature of the tribunal in the first instance, by its location in London in the second place, and, in the third place, by the methods,

wholly unjudicial only too often, which are applied by the tribunal, consisting as it does for the most part of men who are unversed in judicial procedure. It has done much harm to these schemes themselves.
We all of us wish these marketing schemes to be successful, but if they are to become part of the machinery of this country, it is absolutely essential that they should not be removed from the ordinary sphere of the law courts; and the general system of justice which has been applied by the Ministry of Agriculture, with great success, to a bewildering number of enactments, any breach of which may result in a summons before justices in the ordinary way, should be applied in some measure to these schemes. I cannot believe that it is necessary for the success of the schemes that there should be a special tribunal. I greatly dislike—and I have had a vast amount of evidence from many people in connection with milk, potatoes, and other matters that they dislike—the idea of these people having to appear before a tribunal whom they regard as interested parties. I hope, therefore, the Minister will be able to give us a favourable reply.

Mr. R. Acland: In view of the criticism of the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick), I would like to say that we on these benches are not wedded to any particular amount of fine, but are concerned only with the principle, and if the Minister will accept our Clause, we shall be happy to make any necessary change on the later Amendment when we reach it.

4.27 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) has raised, by his new Clause, a matter of very great importance, and I am sure the House will sympathise with us in having to discuss it at this late stage of the Bill, because it will be obvious that this new Clause, if accepted and embodied in the Bill on the Report stage, would entail variations and amendments in the whole system of the Agricultural Marketing Acts, which are built on similar lines. This is a question of principle, and we should approach it as such. I was glad to hear the hon. Member who introduced the Clause dissociate himself from charges of unfair-


ness on the part of the boards which have to administer these schemes, but the first point that I should like to make to the House is that in this matter there are two questions, which ought not to be confused. The hon. Member and other hon. Members drew attention to the inconvenience which may be caused to a member who has to answer a charge of having broken the provisions of a scheme, by having to come to London from some distant port. I am ready to listen to representations as to the working of the Agricultural Marketing Acts on this question, and I would be glad to consider any improvements in the system which would render it more easy for one of the members affected to state his case, but behind that is the larger question of principle, and it is on this that the House must decide.
As hon. Members are aware, the whole scheme of the Agricultural Marketing Acts is an attempt to introduce what one might call industrial self-discipline in a selected body of the community. They agree by vote—the majority of them—to observe the provisions of certain schemes, and it then becomes the duty of the board to inflict penalties on those who break those schemes, both in common justice to the vast majority of the members represented on the board who keep the provisions faithfully, and for the common good. I think that the great question of principle which rests behind that is a very serious one. If we accept the new Clause and make breaches of these schemes answerable for in courts of summary jurisdiction, we are treating breaches of the schemes as if they were offences against the criminal law and against the public good, whereas they are by no means anything of the kind. They are breaches of the rules by members who ought to obey the rules. They are not in any respect to be confused with breaches of the criminal code which affects the whole of the body politic. I suggest that it would be wrong at this stage to take the step of saying that because a man contravenes some provision of a marketing scheme created for the benefit of himself and his fellows, who form a certain category of the public and are not the public at large——

Mr. Foot: Surely the position of any individual producer under a marketing

scheme is that he either has to come under the scheme, be a registered producer and submit himself to the rules, or go out of business?

Mr. Morrison: If a scheme is of such an unjust character that the producers will not have it, it cannot come into existence. When we come to that part of the Bill, the hon. Member will see that a substantial majority is required before the wish of the majority can prevail in these matters. If you take the stand that it is wrong that producers in a certain line of business should be able to regulate their own affairs for the greatest good of the greatest number of persons in that category, and if you believe in complete laissez faireand the absolute abandonment of all attempts to make the members comply with certain rules for their own benefit, you will support a Clause of this character. I advise the House to hesitate long before it takes what I consider to be the important step of placing breaches of these domestic matters, which apply not to the whole public but to the members of the industry alone, on all fours with criminal prosecutions for offences against the public weal which bring a stigma of acting against the public interest. Industrial self-discipline is no new thing. Members of a trade union or of one of the learned professions have to abide by the rules of the union or profession, and although I believe that in the medical and the solicitors' branch of the legal profession, there is no power for the profession itself to inflict fines, they can in certain circumstances take steps which have a serious effect on the whole livelihood of the members. Trade unions have the power to impose penalties upon their members for breaches of the rules.

Mr. Macquisten: They do not need to pay them.

Mr. Morrison: That is a question of law which the hon. and learned Member might argue at some other time, but it is a good thing that there should be a certain amount of domestic co-operation in these matters and that those who transgress the rules of a particular organisation should not be confounded with those who break the criminal law at large. I do not say that this procedure is not capable of improvement, but the House must remember that there are great safeguards in it. If there is any dispute about


a finding of the board, a member has a right to go to arbitration, and the whole machinery of the Arbitration Acts applies. The arbitrator can take evidence according to the rules of evidence, the whole question of law is raised, and the ultimate sanction of the courts is available if the board has transgressed the powers which its members have agreed to abide by. It will be seen, I think, that the matter is on a very different scale from that on which some hon. Members have put it.

Mr. Foot: Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the fishermen and small fish salesmen who may be affected by this Measure have the means to go to arbitration?

Mr. Morrison: The hon. Member will see that this does not really affect the small fishermen. They will be exempt from a scheme altogether and it will have nothing to do with them. The sort of people who may break the rules of the industry are some rich powerful trawling company who may think it is much better for the sake of some advantage to pay the fine. I would ask the House to remember that the small fishermen, for whom the Noble Lady spoke, are not affected by this at all.

Viscountess Astor: A very small company may be affected by it.

Mr. Morrison: The intention is to exclude not only inshore fishermen but small trawlers which are not a serious item in the total output of fish.

Mr. Beechman: Clause 19 deals with inshore fishermen in connection with cooperative schemes, and there are penalties which apply to them.

Mr. Morrison: The penalties will not be imposed by a marketing board. These people have nothing to do with the marketing board organisation which we are discussing now. There are absolute safeguards as regards the public interest in these matters. If a person is alleged to have transgressed the rules of the industry, the board has to ascertain the facts. This is not a judicial tribunal. "The rules are carefully laid down in the scheme, and it is not a question which requires the employment of learned counsel in order to ascertain whether or not some rule has been broken. Very often these things are done by corre

spondence, and the penalty is imposed according to the gravity of the offence. It is an important thing that bodies of people who get together for industrial self-discipline should have a degree of responsibility for their own members; and to treat breaches of their rules as an infringement of the criminal law would be unjust.

Mr. Magnay: Would there be any objection to the new Clause if it applied to county courts instead of to courts of summary jurisdiction? County courts have to administer hundreds of Acts, and would there be any objection to their dealing with this matter?

Mr. Morrison: I admit that that would remove a certain amount of the stigma of bringing a man before a criminal court for a breach of domestic regulations, but at the moment I do not think that that is the proper way to go about it. The county court administers the law of the land, which is applicable to the whole body of citizens, whereas the things we are now considering are not breaches of the law of the land but of the rules of an association which is limited to certain people. I will consider all that has been said in its wider aspect in relation to the entire system of agricultural marketing, and if greater justice can be brought about I shall be happy to consider what can be done; but in the meantime, I ask the House not to make a piecemeal alteration in a matter involving the important principle of industrial self-discipline.

4.40 p.m.

Mr. Kingsley Griffith: The machinery here set up has a wide application because in Clause 5 the words setting up the marketing schemes are perfectly general. Clause 12, paragraph (c) follows on that, and all that is in Clause 19 is a provision whereby certain branches of the trade may be taken out. Theprima facieapplication of the system which is objected to is general. I was disappointed by the reception given by the Minister to this Debate because there has certainly been no party feeling in it. The new Clause has been supported in all parts of the House and by Members with experience of the working of the previous schemes. I was surprised that the Minister should take the line that this was a far-reaching proposal which would strike at the general system under which all the agricultural


marketing Acts are working. I think that is true, but the mere fact that the House and the country have now had a considerable experience of the working of marketing schemes in general puts us in a better position now to say what machinery is applicable. Surely it is not to be said that in this experimental time in the treatment of agriculture anything which has been embodied in the earlier Acts has to go on untouched for ever. The time must come when, judging by experience, this House has to say, "We do not like this system, and we think it ought to be altered in this Bill"; and if that carries with it the logical conclusion that the alteration should be made in the other Acts as well, so much the better.
The Minister has given us only vague encouragement that some amendment may be made on the question of convenience of travel, but on the question of principle he has given us no encouragement at all. The argument by which he defended the system in this Bill seemed to be a purely Fascist argument. He is setting up a kind of totalitarian principle in each of these industries. That does not appear to me reassuring. The point about the stigma of going before the criminal courts has very little in it. The cases that come before the magistrates vary in a great degree from things which are obviously criminal to matters of convenience and acts of forgetfulness such as not having a lamp on a bicycle. Nobody imagines that anyone charged with that offence will have a criminal stigma. To say that the offences under this Bill are breaches of rules which people ought to observe may be said of any offence that is tried in the criminal courts, and the Minister has ignored the essential thing that lies behind this new Clause. That is the desire that people who are to be adversely affected and mulcted by a decision of the Board should be properly tried and have the circumstances properly examined. It is essential that justice should be done and, what always goes with it, that justice should seem to be done and that people should have confidence in the tribunal which tries them. I hope the Minister will give this matter a great deal more serious consideration than he seems to have given it judging by his speech. I hope that the decision will be taken by the House to-day in favour of this principle. If not, I hope the Minister will

be guided by what has been said on all sides and try to make some better arrangement in another place.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Macquisten: I would like to support the speeches which have been made in favour of this new Clause. There is nothing more monstrous than the power of the marketing boards to fine citizens. The Star Chamber was nothing compared to them. They are like the Russian Ogpu. They get a vote of a number of people who think it is going to affect their personal interest. They get on top of a small minority who never asked to be taken into the scheme. What right has a majority in this case to fix up what the minority is to do? They have no more right to compel a minority in a commercial matter of this sort than they have to compel a minority in regard to religious principles. One man may well say: "I want to trade in a special way." Why should he be bullied by the majority, who are probably the big concerns? It is the little man who suffers. The little man is being exterminated under the Milk Marketing Board. The little man is being exterminated in agriculture. He has not a chance. The Milk Marketing Board simply by a resolution can fine him, even up to£100. They can do that without a trial, and merely by a resolution of the board. If they want to fine him up to £200, they have to proceed on indictment. What a monstrous thing it is in this old England of ours, where we have fought for liberty for hundreds of years, back to Cromwellian times and back to the days of King John, that there should now be these little Ogpu bodies, or these Pooh Bahs, who search out the little men in far distant places and shoot at them, as if with a Big Bertha, and fine them from £25 up to £100. The whole thing ought to be indignantly repudiated.
I have told some of these Milk Board men that if any of these people who have been persecuted and crushed by them take the law into their own hands and come before a British jury, I would undertake to represent them and get them off before any British jury when once they understood the situation. The position is intolerable. Now the little fishermen are to be harassed and caught up in the mesh of this thing—this new thing called a marketing board. These boards


are the creation of unemployed lawyers. As I have said before, and I repeat it now, unemployed lawyers are just as dangerous as sharks in a bathing pool. They are looking about for whom they may devour. There is a perpetual attraction in the formation of these marketing boards, because numbers of people who form these boards get good salaries. They crush the producer. It is a monstrous thing that these fines should be imposed and that there should not be a trial in open court. Where is the stigma in trial in an open court, so long as you get justice? It is much better to be tried in court than in a secret chamber. But it is not so secret after all, because if one looks at the Milk Board's Journal one sees pages and pages recording the enormous fines. They glory in them.
Where do all these fines go? They go into the Milk Board's till. Why should they be able to prosecute people and put the fines into their own till? I do not suggest that they are used for personal purposes, but they are used for Milk Board purposes. The scales of justice are weighed unfairly in this way. It reminds one of what it used to be in regard to motor prosecutions, when the police sought to get motor fines in order to help the county rates. There ought to be an entirely independent judge sitting, who will be able to say whether there has been any breach of these precious rules that have been rammed down the throats of the minorities, large or small. It is grossly unfair that these boards should sit in judgment on these cases. We might as well say that the policeman who runs a man in should sit in judgment on him and be allowed to impose a fine. The board, so to speak, run these men in, and then they try them and fine them. These people ought to have access to the courts.
A case appeared in the "Daily Telegraph" the other day where the Milk Board was afraid that a particular farmer might give a larger measure than he ought to give. It is a terrible crime in their eyes to sell milk cheaply to the poor or to give a little extra. That is a shocking thing in the eyes of the Milk Board. Therefore, they got hold of a little boy, one of a number of little brothers and sisters, and sent him to the farm as an agent provocateur. The

"tecs" of the Milk Board waited for him, and then the Milk Board immediately rounded on the wretched farmer and run him in, and he was fined£10. They knew perfectly well that if that case had gone before an ordinary magistrate he would have said: "This is monstrous," fined him a penny and the Milk Board would have been the people convicted in the public eye. The same thing applies to these people who are going to run in the wretched little fishermen.
This is what takes place in this so-called free country of England, and we find a most intelligent Minister bringing forward sophistical arguments in support of it. This Government and other Governments who have been responsible for such things as these contemptible marketing boards ought to hang their heads in shame. It is against our history. It is opposed to the history for which their forefathers fought. It is opposed to the British liberty which their forefathers defended. Instead of restricting liberty they ought to endeavour to amplify and extend it.

4.52 p.m.

Sir John Withers: I know nothing of this Bill except what I have heard sitting here. I have great sympathy with what the Minister said with regard to the formation of these boards and the idea that they should have their own discipline, but there is a great deal of the argument of the Mover of the new Clause which stands good. The argument that it is very unfair that these poor people should have to come to London and have their cases tried here, stands good. The Minister talked of generalities, but he has proposed nothing else. Because we have made a lot of mistakes in the past are we to go on making mistakes? If things are found to be unjust, let us deal with them now, and let there be a general Act later on to put the other things right. If the new Clause is carried to a Division. I shall certainly vote in favour of it.

4.53 P.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: It is remarkable that the people who are supporting the new Clause all appear to be members of the legal profession, except perhaps one.

Sir A. Wilson: That is not so.

Mr. Macquisten: Is the hon. and gallant Member not aware that the people who have stood for liberty in the past were lawyers? Lawyers have always been the people throughout the generations who have stood for liberty. It is the layman who has sold liberty for commercial interests.

Viscountess Astor: The hon. and learned Member has just been blaming the lawyers.

Mr. Macquisten: I am speaking now of employed lawyers, and not of unemployed lawyers. They are the failures in the profession. They are the people who do the wrong.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I hope the hon. and learned Member has seen the awkward position into which he has got himself. It has been suggested that the county courts should be invoked. The county court is an expensive court, although it brings in good fees for barristers and solicitors.

Mr. Foot: Why should it be more expensive to appear before a police court in your own district than to appear before the board, which may be meeting a very long distance from your own district?

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I am in agreement with the ideas behind the hon. Member in moving the new Clause, but where I differ from him is in suggesting that it should be a local court. He has been pointing out a very obvious flaw in the operations of the board. The hon. Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) has spoken of the board as a totalitarian system. I am glad that he used that phrase, because he will understand that these boards were set up by the Labour party.

Mr. Macquisten: Why should we follow their example?

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: We have always said that institutions which the party opposite set up, if misdirected, lead to the totalitarian State. Therefore, the hon. Member for West Middlesbrough agrees with me. I agree that there ought to be some court where these people could go, and that is not impossible under the marketing schemes, but I do not agree with the sort of local court that has been suggested. It is acknowledged that the

existing arrangements are not perfect. They are not perfect because the courts are too centralised and people cannot get to them and obtain advice. There is one kind of court which is now sitting which might possibly be extended to deal with these marketing schemes. I refer to the sort of court that has been set up under the Road Traffic Acts. They are not courts which are centralised in London. They are not county courts, nor are they petty sessional courts, but they do dispense a certain amount of justice to the people who go to them, and I suggest that the courts set up under the Marketing Acts ought to be something of that sort. I do not, however, think that they can be started under this Bill. I cannot support the new Clause, because the mover goes the wrong way about it. I should like it to be put on record that I wish people to be dealt with locally, but I should not desire to see them brought into a local court. I hope the Minister will be able to create the machinery which will carry out the ideas I have suggested.

4.57 P.m.

Lord Willoughby de Eresby: I rise to support the underlying principle of the new Clause. I do not speak with any great knowledge nor in dutiful support of the Noble Lady the Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Viscountess Astor), but I support the new Clause on the ground of consistency, having recently put my name to a private Member's Bill designed to alter the procedure under the Miilk Marketing Act. The Minister has said that this is only a domestic question. I am not particularly clever on legal questions, but I should have thought that when this Bill becomes the law of the land it should be judged by a judicial court rather than a purely domestic court. I can understand my right hon. Friend's argument that it may be undesirable to alter the principles underlying the whole legislation which authorises Marketing Acts, by legislating in a piecemeal fashion, but I should like some assurance from him that the whole question will be reconsidered at a very early date, in order that we may be able to alter the very vicious principle which is embodied in the Marketing Acts.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I should like to consider the whole question as one question dealing with all this Agricultural


Marketing Act legislation. It is far better to do it in that way than by any piecemeal legislation. I hope that with that assurance the hon. Member will see his way to withdraw his Motion and the new Clause.

Mr. Macquisten: The people will be perishing all the time while the right hon. Gentleman is considering the matter. Will he stop all these prosecutions and fines until he has considered it?

Mr. Morrison: No, I could not do that.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. A. V. Alexander: I do not know whether it is intended to go to a Division, but there has certainly been a good deal said about the origin of these particular powers which we have been discussing. Under Sections 5 and 6 of the Act of 1931 there are general powers given for the formulation of schemes and provision for any necessary penalties involved in the breaking of contracts or in the breaking of statutory regulations. Whether the provisions in the original Act work harmfully or not depends upon the manner in which a scheme is drafted and upon the extent of the penalties, and when I recollect the weeks and months which I spent before committees of inquiry into the draft marketing schemes, and the extent to which the producers were free to present objections to the provisions of schemes, I am a little surprised at some of the things which have been said to-day. The essential

thing has just been said by the Minister. I think there is a good deal of genuine indignation over the measure of some of the penalties which have been inflicted under certain marketing schemes, and there may be genuine apprehension as to what may happen under this Bill, but in spite of all that has been said, I think it would be a pity to amend the whole basis of the marketing legislation by a precedent in this particular Bill. It is a subject which should be examined as a whole, and I think that my hon. Friends below the Gangway and hon. Members opposite have made out a very strong case for examination. If the Minister were to promise that between now and the appearance of this Bill in another place he would look into the question, and were then able to say that at a later date he would introduce legislation amending the marketing statutes generally, I should look at the matter somewhat differently.

Mr. Macquisten: It is very interesting to hear that the right hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) sat for so many weeks helping or advising—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): The hon. and learned Member has already exhausted his right to speak.

Question put, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The House divided: Ayes, 126; Noes, 209.

Division No. 168.]
AYES.
[5.3 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Dangar, G.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng, Univ's.)


Adams, D. (Conselt)
Dalton, H.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, s.)
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)


Adamson, W. M.
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Day, H.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)


Ammon, C. G.
Dobbie, W.
Holdsworth, H.


Astor, Viscountess (Plymouth, Sutton)
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
John, W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Ede, J. C.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)


Banfield, J. W.
Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)


Barnes, A. J.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Kelly, W. T.


Barr, J.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.


Baley, J.
Gallacher, W.
Kirkwood, D.


Beechman, N. A.
Gardner. B. W.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.


Bellenger, F. J.
Garro Jones, G. M.
Lathan, G.


Benson, G.
George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Leonard, W.


Bevan, A.
George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Leslie, J. R.


Broad, F. A.
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Lunn, W.


Bromfield, W.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
McEntee, V. La T.


Buchanan, G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Macquisten, F. A.


Burke, W. A.
Grenfell, D. R.
Mander, G. le M.


Cape, T.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Marshall, F.


Cassells, T.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Mathers, G.


Charleton, H. C.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Maxton, J.


Chater, D.
Groves, T. E.
Milner, Major J.


Cluse, W. S.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Montague, F.


Cocks, F. S.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Cove, W. G.
Hardie, Agnes
Noel-Baker, P. J.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Harris, Sir P. A.
Owen, Major G.




Paling, W.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)
Watson, W. McL.


Parker, J.
Smith, T. (Normanton)
Westwood, J.


Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.
Stephen, C.
White, H. Graham


Pritt, D. N.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Richards, R. (Wrexham)
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth. N.)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Ridley, G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Riley, B.
Thorne, W.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Ritson, J.
Thurtle, E.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)
Tinker, J, J.
Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)


Sexton, T. M.
Tomlinson, G.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Shinwell, E.
Viant, S. P.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Simpson, F. B.
Walkden, A. G.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Smith, Ben (Rotherhitha)
Walker, J.



Smith, E. (Stoke)
Watkins, F. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Sir Hugh Seely and Mr. Foot.




NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Ll.-Col. G. J.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ[...]


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Grant-Ferris, R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Granville, E. L.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Albery, Sir Irving
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Grimston, R. V.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Assheton, R.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Peal, C. U.


Atholl, Duchess of
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Peters, Dr. S. J.


Baillie, Sir A. W. M.
Guest, Maj.Hon.O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Pilkington, R.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanel)
Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Hannah, I. C.
Procter, Major H. A.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Ramsbotham, H.


Bernays, R. H.
Harvey, Sir G.
Ramsden, Sir E.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Rankin, Sir R.


Blair, Sir R.
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Rayner, Major R. H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Renter, J. R.


Browns, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Higgs, W. F.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)


Burgin, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Burton, Col. H. W.
Holmes, J. S.
Ropner, Colonel L.


Butcher, H. W.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Hopkin, D.
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.


Carver, Major W. H.
Horsbrugh, Florence
Ruggles-Brisc, Colonel Sir E. A.


Cary, R. A.
Howilt, Or. A. B.
Russell, Sir Alexander


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hulbert, N. J.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)


Channon, H.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Salmon, Sir I.


Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Hunter, T.
Salt, E. W.


Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Samuel M. R. A.


Clarke, Frank (Dartford)
Hutchinson, G. C.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Inskip, Rt. Hon Sir T. W. H.
Sanderson, Sir F. B.


Conant, Captain R. J. E.
James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Sandys, E. D.


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S)
Joel, D. J. B.
Savery, Sir Servington


Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Keeling, E. H.
Scott, Lord William


Cox, H. B. Trevor
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Crooke, Sir J. S.
Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Crowder, J. F. E.
Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Simmonds, O. E.


Culverwell, C. T.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yecvil)
Law. R. K. (Hull, S.W.)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Davison, Sir W. H.
Leech, Sir J. W.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Dawson, Sir P.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Smithers, Sir W.


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Somerville, A. A, (Windsor)


Denville, Alfred
Levy, T.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Doland, G. F.
Lewis, O.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Dower, Major A. V. G.
Lipson, D. L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)


Duckworth W R. (Moss Side)
Little, Sir E. Graham
Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)


Dugdale, Captain T. L.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Storey, S.


Duggan, H. J.
Loftus, P. C.
Stourton, Major Hon J. J.


Duncan. J. A. L.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Strauss, E. A. (Southward N.)


Ellis, Sir G.
M'Connell, Sir J.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Elliston. Capt. G. S.
McCorquodale, M. S.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- (N'thw h)


Emmott, C. E. G. C.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Emrys-Evans, P. V.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Entwistle, Sir C. F.
McKie, J. H.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Erskine-Hill, A. G.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Everard, W. L.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Findlay. Sir E.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Touche, G. C.


Fleming, E. L.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Wakefield, W. W.


Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Furness. S. N.

Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Gluckstein, L. H.
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel Sir T. C. R.
Wardlaw-Milne, Sir J. S.


Gower, Sir R. V.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Waterhouse, Captain C.







Watt, Major G. S. Harvie
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Wayland, Sir W. A
Womersley, Sir W. J.
Mr. Cross and Major Sir James


Wedderburn, H. J. S.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.
Edmondson.


Wells, S. R.
Young, A. S. L. (Parlick)

>CLAUSE 2.—(White Fish Industry Joint council.)

5.12 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I beg to move, in page 2, line 23, at the end, to insert:
(d) the business of a fishmonger in Scotland.
I am afraid that the Amendment which I am now submitting may not command the same wide general support as was given to the Clause which I moved. This Amendment is designed to meet the special needs of the retail fish trade in Scotland, because it is widely felt in Scotland that their needs will not be met simply by the appointment on the Joint Council of a representative of the fishmongers all over the country. The reasons in support of the Amendment are these: First, in Scotland, unlike England, there are no inland wholesale fish markets; practically all the markets are at the ports. The fishmonger, or his agent, attends each day and selects his own purchases from the landings, as the fish comes in. He does not depend upon a wholesaler to anything like the same extent as does the fishmonger in England. Secondly, very large quantities of the fish sold in Scotland have been filleted. That may be thought to be not entirely desirable, but it is the form in which large quantities of fish are sold there, and the filleting of the fish is done by the fishmongers on their own premises. Thirdly, I am informed, and admittedly my information comes from Scotland, that the fish sold in Scotland is usually of a much higher standard than the fish sold in England. It is suggested that that is due to the fact that Scotland has a much larger number of small ports and small fishing centres at which the fish is landed. Fourthly, the Scottish fishmonger depends very much less upon sidelines, the selling of other commodities in his shop, than does the English fishmonger.
I understand that this request for separate representation has already been before the Ministers who are in charge of the Bill, and also that it has the support of the National Federation of Fishmongers. I may be told that this Amendment is really unnecessary, and in a sense it may be, because the Clause provides that the Ministers may appoint "such

other members" as they think desirable. As far as I can see the Clause does not lay down the exact number of members who are to be appointed to the Joint Council to represent the various sections of the industry. For all I know it may be the intention of the Minister to make an appointment of this kind. I ask only that he shall bear in mind the representations which have been made on behalf of Scottish fishmongers. I hope the Minister will tell me that he is giving serious consideration to these representations and that, if he finds it necessary and is satisfied that the conditions obtain, he will give the same separate representation to Scottish fishmongers.

Sir Hugh Seely: I beg to second the Amendment.

5.16 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The hon. Member who moved the Amendment must realise that its implications have to be considered. The Bill has hitherto proceeded upon the basis that schemes would apply throughout Great Britain, and this is the first suggestion which we have had that it ought to be regional or national in character, in that separate treatment should be accorded to Scotland. It is clear that I could not accept the Amendment without very much consideration but, in the time at my disposal, I have looked at Clause 8, where it is made possible for the powers exercisable by a producers' marketing board to apply either generally, or in relation to a particular area. Some variation may be made to suit the requirements of a particular locality. No such power is in the Bill in relation to distributors' requirements, and I am prepared to consider whether it is possible to make the necessary Amendment to Clause 10 and impart some elasticity to it in regard to local conditions and requirements of distributors. I give that assurance. I will consider the representations of the advisory committee on any local condition such as those to which the hon. Member has directed my attention.

Mr. Foot: In view of that assurance, for which I thank the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.18p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 2, line 36, to leave out from "Act," to "a," in line 39, and to insert:
a person shall be deemed to carry on the business of selling white fish by wholesale if, in the course of any business carried on by him, he sells any white fish to a person who buys the fish for the purpose of selling them again, and shall be deemed to carry on the business of a fishmonger if, in the course of any business carried on by him, he sells white fish by retail:
Provided that—

(a) a sale of white fish by auction effected at a port by or on behalf of the catcher of the fish shall be deemed not to be a sale by wholesale;
(b) a person shall not be taken to carry on the business of a fishmonger by reason only that at any premises he sells white fish for consumption at those premises; and
(c) a sale of white fish to a person who, in the course of carrying on any business other than that of a fish-frier, buys white fish for the purpose only of selling them again in a condition in which they are ready for eating without further treatment, shall be deemed to be a sale by retail and not a sale by wholesale;


and, whenever a person whose business or part of whose business it is to buy white fish for the purpose of selling them again buys any white fish, he shall, until the contrary is proved, be deemed to buy the fish for that purpose.
(4) For the purposes of this Part of this Act.
This Amendment is formidable in appearance but very simple in purpose. Its object is to make sure that there is no confusion or overlapping among the various designated businesses, which are the foundation of the whole machinery of the Bill. It is essential that people should know to which designated business they belong, and it is necessary that some definition be attempted to distinguish between wholesalers and retailers in the trade so that each one engaged in it will know to which section of the trade he may belong. It is true that he may belong to both and require to be registered accordingly. This is the definition which we thought it proper to put in. I would direct the attention of the House to paragraph (c) the effect of which is to make the person who sells fish to a hotel or a restaurant a retailer for that purpose. Some wholesalers may sell by wholesale to hotels and restaurants and it may seem a little anomalous that they should be considered retailers for that purpose; but the anomaly would be very

much greater if every fishmonger who included a hotel among his customers were to be classed as a wholesaler. There may be a few cases where large fishmongers sell fish to a hotel. This seems to be the best definition that can be adopted.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Roland Robinson: I am glad that the Minister has seen fit to include in this Clause a definition of a fishmonger. There was a great deal of confusion as to people who were concerned in designated businesses, and as they were liable to heavy penalties it was necessary that some definition should be included. The present definition does not go far enough to make a distinction between a restaurant and a fish frier. There is bound to be confusion in distinguishing between a restaurant which does not have to be registered and the fish frier who must be registered. I wonder whether the Minister will give his mind to that problem because of the litigation which may arise at a later stage. I take it that the definition Clause is intended to make the definition of fishmonger as wide as possible so that it covers people who make a business of selling fish by retail. Is the grocer who sells a can of sardines a fishmonger, in that case? I am afraid he is, but I am sure that the Minister would not want that man to be registered.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I would not like to construe this Amendment offhand, but I do not think that in the instance which the hon. Member mentioned that would make the grocer a fishmonger. The Bill relates to white fish.

Mr. Robinson: I am sure that it is so, because in the definition Clause white fish covers all fish taken from the sea except herring and salmon. Sardines and pilchards must come under the definition.

Mr. Beechman: Am I to understand that pilchards are not white fish?

Mr. Morrison: I would not be prepared to make a statement about that right away. It requires a certain amount of piscatorial knowledge. I will look into the point and, if necessary, take steps to make it clear. The intention of the Bill is not to turn a man who sells a tin of sardines into a fishmonger.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 2, line 40, leave out "for the said purposes."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

CLAUSE 4.—(Power of Commission to regulate marketing of white fish.)

5 23 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: I beg to move, in page 5, line 29, at the end, to insert:
and for preventing or regulating the combination of wholesalers for the purposes of carrying out joint buying.
Members who were on the Standing Committee will recollect that this point was raised in the course of the discussion. Although the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland seemed to hold the view at that time that the objective which we have in view could not be reached either by Statute or by statutory regulation, a promise was given that the matter would be reconsidered before the Report stage. The Clause that we seek to amend merely gives power to the Commission to make regulations. We seek that they should make regulations to deal with the particular evil to which special attention was drawn in the Duncan Commission's Report. On page 37 of that report it is stated:
Further, despite the number of merchants, there is, in the auction itself often a curtailment of free competition, because so many of them are operating on such a small scale that a group not infrequently gets one of its number to buy, and shares out the purchase in smaller lots.
We understand the object of the Bill to be to prevent fishermen from being exploited in the disposal of their catches. It would, therefore, not be unreasonable to ask the Government to give the Commission power to make regulations to deal with that type of evil. I must raise again the answer which the Under-Secretary gave in Committee. I am not satisfied that what we propose cannot be done, and I submit that it cannot possibly hurt to put such a power into the Bill. If you discover that regulations can be framed in such a way as to be effective I believe they could stop this forming of rings on the market against the fisherman with the object of preventing him from getting a proper reward for his catch.

5.27 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward: I cannot help feeling that if the Amendment were inserted in the Bill it would be extraordinarily difficult to enforce. One of the great mistakes which tend to become more common in legislation to-day is to pass laws which are easy to enact but difficult to enforce. It tends to bring

the whole legislative system into disrepute. When one has become accustomed to breaking a law there is a tendency to go on doing it. It, obviously, is bad for a ring to restrict the buying of fish to such an extent that fishermen do not receive a fair price or a fair remuneration for their work, but even if this proviso were inserted it would be easy to evade it.
Another fact which has not been mentioned in relation to auctions is that the auctioneer has the remedy in his own hands. It is one which he frequently uses, and consists of accepting imaginary bids. It is a well-known custom at auctions. If the auctioneer thinks that a ring has been formed to restrict buying he very often accepts imaginary bids from people who are not bidding. In the long run one usually finds that the effect of a ring of this kind is more or less negatived by the action of the auctioneer. In the circumstances it would be a mistake to insert this proviso, because it would be extremely difficult of enforcement.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Beechman: The Amendment raises again a matter of the utmost consequence. We are seeking to help the fisherman in one of his chief grievances, which is the great disparity between the price obtained by him and the price at which the fish are sold to the public. I do not say for a moment, and I do not believe, that the fault lies with the local buyers, but I have reason to believe, and I think there is a case for inquiry into the matter, that the fault lies in the auctions in the larger centres. There have been some inquiries, and those of us who are concerned with these matters believe that rings exist whereby buyers are able to obtain fish at very moderate prices and sell it to the consumers at a very large profit. This is not only a grievance for the consumer, but it means that the fisherman feels acutely that he is not getting a chance to obtain a proper price for his fish. I listened with great interest to what was said by the previous speaker, and I agree that there is a difficulty in putting these matters right, but this is not by any means the first time that action has been taken by this House to regulate behaviour at auctions so as to avoid rings. Legislation—the name of the Bill escapes me for the moment—was passed by this House only a few years ago——

Sir Douglas Thomson: Has it ever been found possible to bring any proceedings under that Measure?

Mr. Beechman: I agree, and no doubt the hon. and gallant Gentleman who spoke before me had it in mind, that it has been found difficult to put the provisions of that Act into operation, but I am not going to say that it has no effect. I believe it has had a very salutary effect. There is another reason why I should like to see this Amendment very seriously considered, and, indeed, should like to see the words inserted in the Bill. One of the matters which the Commission must consider is the cause of the tremendous disparity between the price charged to the consumer and the price received by the fishermen, and I think that, if these words are inserted in the Bill, they will ensure that the Commission will take serious note of this very important question.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. Macquisten: I do not think there is much in the argument that has been advanced against this Amendment by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward). All crafty things are difficult to check, but those who engage in them are burdened with a sense of sin. It is an old saying that, when thieves fall out, honest men get their due, and these plunderers of the fisherman will occasionally fall out over the plunder. There is no doubt that there are rings in the fish markets—shocking and disgraceful rings. A friend of mine had a confession made to him some years ago by one of the buyers to whom fish are consigned by the poor fishermen. He said that one of the ways in which they made their profits and wealth was that one buyer would sell fish to another buyer and charge the fisherman his commission for selling it, and the other buyer would sell his fish to the first buyer. In this way each would make the profit that causes the immense spread between wholesale and retail prices. That was a little bit of inside information, perhaps incautiously given, as to what was happening in the fish market. I remember also that an acquaintance of mine questioned the price charged to him for salmon at Billingsgate, and pointed out that it was much higher than was stated in the official magazine; but the man who ran the magazine said, "These are the

prices we put in to enable us to deal with the fishermen." In this way all these little producers are being robbed by middlemen. We are here to see that the men who do the hard work get the best reward, and that the others are put back into the position where they ought to be.

5.36 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) has reminded the House that this Amendment was discussed at considerable length in Committee, and that I undertook to re-examine the matter before Report. I gave that undertaking in response to representations which were made from all quarters of the Committee, but I also said this:
All that I would make plain is that I cannot promise that the effect of my looking into it again will produce any useful results, because we already have examined it for a very long time in the light of the Commission's Report.—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 14th December, 5937; col. 177]
I went on to say that I should be only too willing to receive any suggestions and to reconsider the matter to the best of my ability. I said that because of the sympathy that I feel with the purposes of the Amendment. But, having examined the matter further with a view to seeing whether anything could be done to meet the views put forward by hon. Members, I am sorry to say we find that there seems to be no practical means of achieving the object which could be enforceable, and I do not think it would be wise to insert in the Bill words which would confer powers upon the Commission to make regulations which are incapable of enforcement. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) referred to previous legislation. I think the Act he had in mind was the Auctions (Bidding Agreements) Act, 1927. That Act, which was passed some if years ago, would fully cover all cases of the kind we have in mind, and would, if it could be enforced, prohibit the doing of anything which hon. Members desire to prevent; but the fact is that in practice the Act has been a dead letter, and I do not think it has been possible to bring forward under it a single successful prosecution.

Mr. Macquisten: Probably they now obey the law.

Mr. Wedderburn: My hon. and learned Friend has said that buyers' rings ought to be imbued with a sense of sin by having it stated in some Statute that the operation of rings at auctions is a transgression; but the transgression is already defined, And the sin 'is already condemned, in the Auctions (Bidding Agreements) Act, 1927, and the persons concerned should already have, however much they may favour these practices, that sense of sin which my hon. and learned Friend is so rightly anxious to instil into their souls. I would point out to the House that, when marketing organisation is in force, it will be possible for producers if they are satisfied that a particular wholesaler is offending in this matter to decline to deal with him, although it may not be legally possible to bring it home to him in a court of law. In the system of marketing organisation —to which on an earlier Amendment my hon. and learned Friend took such sore exception—there is a real practical safeguard against the undesirable practices which he has condemned with equal severity on the present Amendment.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: Hon. Members on this side of the House, and my right hon. Friend and myself, are disappointed by the reply which the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland has just given. We were under the impression, from what he said in Committee, that the Government intended, as a result of their consideration of this matter, to bring forward some Amendment which would have definitely safeguarded the actual producer against any combination of wholesalers. The hon. Gentleman has just said that there is provision in the Bill, though he did not specifically indicate where it is, that would enable a producer, if he were satisfied that there was something wrong in the conduct of wholesalers, or of any particular wholesaler, to decline to deal with those persons. That is all very well, but producers are not in a position to determine a course of action of that kind if they must sell their commodity through some intermediary organisation. It seems to me that, in spite of the safeguards in the Bill, if the wholesaler is determined to take a course of action the intention of which is to keep the price low against the producer, the producer has no remedy whatever.
In the course of the Debate on this matter in Committee, the hon. Gentleman, in reply to a submission I made to him, agreed that wholesalers, in spite of such a provision as is embodied in this Amendment, could act to the detriment of the producer. But what does that prove? It proves that no proper machinery has yet been devised for dealing with those wholesalers in the white fish industry who are determined, in spite of regulations, to take advantage of the producers. It may well be that the words suggested in this Amendment are not the best that could be found, but I had hoped, as had my right hon. Friend, that the Government would have found some form of words which would give the necessary assurances to producers that their interests will be protected. I have been through the whole of the Debates during the Committee stage and on the Second Reading, and I see nothing there or in the Bill itself, apart from vague references to regulations and the functions of the Commission, to provide any actual safeguard for the producer of fish. Later on we shall discuss an Amendment relating to the embargo question, and on that I hope to develop the argument further, but it certainly seems to me that there is no safeguard for the producer. I understood the Minister to say, in the course of our previous discussions, that the Government's primary concern was the interest of the producers of white fish. I have no doubt that that is the intention of the right hon. Gentleman, and I cannot understand why an Amendment of this kind does not receive the consideration of the Government. I repeat that, unless something of this kind is accepted by the Government and embodied in the Bill, the position of producers in the future will be, under this Bill, no better than it is now or than it has been in the past.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Ede: As one who served on the Committee that considered the Bill, I heard the statement of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland with very considerable disappointment. He was so good as to quote some of his own remarks, but he did not quote what was really the gem of his oratory on the morning when we discussed this matter. He commenced his. speech on it to the Committee by saying:
It almost breaks my heart riot to be able to accept this Amendment, because it has


an object with which I have the greatest sympathy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 14th December, 1937; col. 175.]
The hon. Gentleman appears to have recovered from his broken heart, and, in the course of his semi-theological discussion with the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) I gathered that, like Pharaoh of old, he has now hardened his heart against the poor constituents of the hon. and learned Member and myself. We understood that this Bill was required, in the main, owing to the plight in which the men engaged in the white fish industry find themselves as a result of the ineffective price they manage to get when they try to sell their catch. Unless something is done in the way suggested in the Amendment, it is very difficult to see how their second state is going to be any better than their first. I imagine that, under the terms of the Act, if these various other people engaged in getting the fish from the port to the table have been organised it may be that the producers will be considerably worse off than they were.
I should have thought it would be possible for the Minister to see his way to empower the Commission in the way suggested in the Amendment. At any rate, it would make it clear that this House regarded the formation of these rings as being not merely reprehensible but absolutely illegal. That would have given the Commission, in their efforts to deal with the matter, a standing that they could get in no other way. Even now, in spite of the fact that the hon. Member's heart has recovered from the condition of being almost broken, it may be possible to find some form of words, before the Bill is passed, to enable the Commission to take effective action in this matter. It must be a matter of the very greatest concern to these people engaged in catching the fish that, when their fish are put up for disposal, the sales are genuine and they are not prevented from obtaining a proper price, as hon. Members on all sides agree happens at present. The hon. and gallant Member for Buckrose (Major Braithwaite) gave the Committee an account of something that happened in his own constituency. He said:
Two weeks ago I was in my constituency." Twenty-three trawlers came into Bridlington Barbour with a catch of codling, which sold at 2S. 6d. per stone. The price paid on the Grimsby pontoon for similar fish coming from

the same fishing ground on the same day was 3s. 9d. per stone. The price charged in the shops on that day was 1s. per pound. I am all against the auctioneering of fish."…[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 21st December, 1937; col. 183.]
And so he went on to describe the way these people operate. If the Government want producers to think that they are going to get some benefit from the Bill, they will have to reconsider the attitude which has been adopted by the hon. Gentleman this afternoon.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I understand that hon. Members above the Gangway intend to take this matter to a Division. If they do, we intend to vote with them. I just want to enter this proviso on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself. We are voting for the attempt which is being made by the hon. Gentleman above the Gangway, to give the Commission certain responsibilities in regard to combinations of wholesalers. We do not very much like the form of the Amendment, because it merely aims at preventing and regulating the formation of combinations and does not indicate what steps the Commission are to take. We are not satisfied ourselves with the particular words used, which would give very wide and undefined powers to this body.

Mr. Shinwell: Most of the powers vested in the Commission are undefined.

Mr. Foot: I do not want to pursue the matter. I was just making this proviso with regard to the words. As I understand the purpose of this Amendment, it is not just to confer these additional powers on the Commission. We are told that already it is against the law to enter into certain forms of combination or rings, in certain circumstances. The effect of this Amendment would be to give the Commission certain statutory responsibilities, to see that laws of that kind are enforced. It seems to me that, since this is a grievance which is admitted by hon. Members in all parts of the House, and with which the Under-Secretary admitted that he had a great deal of sympathy, we should put a reference to this matter into the Bill, and say that the Commission should be responsible, as far as it can, for seeing that these combinations and rings should not take place. Any of us who are interested in the fishing industry, whether in England or Scotland,


know that there is this difficulty. Wherever you go, whether it be in Cornwall or in Scotland, you hear complaints of this kind; and if the Commission were to be given a statutory responsibility in relation to this matter, would it not mean that those complaints, which are so frequently made, could be taken, and properly taken, to the Commission by those

who wish to make them, and that the Commission would be under an obligation to hear them and, so far as they could, to remove the grievances?

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 122; Noes, 205.

Division No. 169.]
AYES.
[5.53 p.m.


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Oliver, G. H.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Owen, Major G.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Grenfell, D. R.
Paling, W.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Parker, J.


Ammon, C. G.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Pet hick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Pritt, D. N.



Banfield, J. W.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Barnes, A. J.
Groves, T. E.
Ridley, G.


Barr, J.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Riley, B.


Batey, J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Ritson, J.


Beechman, N. A.
Hardie, Agnes
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bellenger, F. J.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Benson, G.
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Sexton, T. M.


Bevan, A.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Shinwell, E.


Broad, F. A.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Simpson, F. B.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Buchanan, G.
Hills, A. (Pontefract)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Cape, T.
Holdsworth, H.
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cassells, T.
Hopkin, D.
Sorensen, R. W.


Charleton, H. C.
Jagger, J.
Stephen, C.


Chater, D.
John, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cluse, W. S.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cocks, F. S.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cove, W. G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Thorne, W.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kelly, W. T.
Thurtle, E.


Daggar G.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Tinker, J. J.


Dalton, H.
Kirkwood, O.
Tomlinson, G.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Lathan, G.
Walkden, A. G.


Debbie, W.
Leonard, W.
Walker, J.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)

Leslie, J. R.
Watkins, F. C.


Ede, J. C.
Loftus, P. C.
Watson, W. McL.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Lunn, W.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
White, H. Graham


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
McEntee, V. La T.
Whiteley, W. (Blaydon)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Macquisten, F. A.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Foot, D. M.
Marshall, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gardner, B. W.
Milner, Major J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Garro Jones, G. M
Montague, F.



George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Morrison, R. G. (Tottenham, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Naylor, T. E.
Mr. Mathers and Mr. Adamson.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Noel-Baker, P. J.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, LI.-Col. G. J.
Carver, Major W. H.
De la Bère, R.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Cary, R. A.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Channon, H.
Danville, Alfred


Albery, Sir Irving
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Doland, G. F.


Allen, Col. J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Chapman, Sir S. (Edinburgh, S.)
Dugdale, Captain T. L.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Clarke, Frank (Dartford)
Duggan, H. J.


Apsley, Lord
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Duncan, J. A. L.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Eastwood, J. F.


Assheton, R.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Atholl, Duchess of
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Ellis, Sir G.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Conant, Captain R. J. E.
Elmley, Viscount


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Emmott, C. E. G. C.


Blair, Sir R.
Courthope, Col. Rt. Hon. Sir G. L.
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Cox, H. B. Trevor
Entwistle, Sir C. F.


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Erskine-Hill, A. G.


Brocklebank, Sir Edmund
Crooke, Sir J. S.
Everard, W. L.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Cross, R. H.
Findlay, Sir E.


Brown, Brig. Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Crowder, J. F. E.
Fleming, E. L.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Cruddas, Col. B.
Furness, S. N.


Burgln, Rt. Hon. E. L.
Culverwell, C. T.
Gower, Sir R. V.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Butcher, H. W.
Davison, Sir W. H.
Grant-Ferris, R.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Dawson, Sir P.
Granville, E. L.




Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Sandys, E. D.


Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Gridlay, Sir A. B.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forlar)


Guest, Han. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Simmonds, O. E.


Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Smithers, Sir W.


Hannah, I. C.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Harvey, Sir G.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. Sir T. C. R.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Spens. W. P.


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Munro, P.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'ld)


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Stewart, J. Henderson (File, E.)


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Storey, S.


Higgs W. F.
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J


Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Holmes, J. S.
Palmer, G. E. H.
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Patrick, C. M.
Stuart, Lord C Crichton- (N'thw'h)


Horsbrugh, Florence
Peake, O.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Hulbert, N. J.
Petharick, M.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Hunter, T.
Pilkington, R.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)


Hutchinson, G. C.
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Thomas, J. P. L.


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Procter, Major H. A.
Touche, G. C.


Joel, D. J. B.
Ramsbotham, H.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Keeling, E. H.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Wakefield, W. W.


Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Rankin, Sir R.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Reid, Sir D. D. (Down)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Leech, Sir J. W.
Reid, W. Allan (Derby)
Wayland, Sir W. A


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Remer, J. R.
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Wells, S. R.


Lewis, O.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Lindsay, K. M.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Lipson, D. L.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Little, Sir E. Graham
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Lloyd, G. W.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.
Russell, Sir Alexander
Withers, Sir J. J.


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)
Salmon, Sir I.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Sail, E. W.



McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Samuel, M. R. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


McKie, J. H.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.
Mr. Grimston and Major Sir




James Edmondson.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: I beg to move, in page 5, line 37, at the end, to insert:
(c) for the purpose of securing that where, in the case of any fish consigned for sale on commission, the salesman makes a charge by way of commission or otherwise, he shall enter in a book kept by him for the purpose the names of the owner or consignor of the fish and of every purchaser and the price paid or agreed to be paid by each purchaser, and shall as soon as practicable after the sale send by post or deliver to the owner or consignor an account containing the following particulars:—

(i) the actual price paid or agreed to be paid for the fish and, where there is any variation in price, the number, weight or quantity sold, or agreed to be sold, at each price; and
(ii) the commission or other charge made by the salesman for selling the fish, together with details of any charges made for services in connection with the sale; and
(iii) the amounts, if any, paid or payable by the salesman on behalf of the owner or consignor in connection with the sale, with details thereof;
(iv) if on any such sale as aforesaid any fish so consigned is bought by the salesman

or by any person on his behalf, the fact shall be stated in the account, but nothing in any regulation made under this provision shall be construed as making any such transaction, if otherwise illegal, legal."


Before describing the effect of my Amendment, I would like to state to the House the body of authority for this proposal, which may incline the Minister and the House to a favourable view of the proposal in the Amendment. This proposal is a repetition of the substance of a private Bill which was introduced into this House by a very respected Member, Sir Murdoch McKenzie Wood, in 1934, and on that occasion it was supported by Members of all parties. It was supported by the Government of the day, and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland on that occasion remarked:
This Bill, with the foundation of an existing Act of Parliament and the recommendation of the Food Council, is not one which, in principle, the Government would be inclined or prepared to oppose. "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1934; col. 2296, Vol. 285.]


It is clear that the present system is open to objection. He went on to refer to the moderate terms in which the Bill was drafted, and the only reason why the Government did not accept and the House did not carry the proposal on that occasion was, that the Duncan Commission was sitting, and it was thought wiser to await the result of their deliberations. This does not launch us upon any new principle. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture has successfully rebutted a proposal of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) which, though recognised perhaps as beneficent, introduced such far-reaching principles that he did not feel able to adopt it in its single application to this Bill.
The proposal that I am making merely brings the procedure under the Bill into line with the procedure which has already been accepted in principle by the House in the case of horticultural products despatched to markets inland for sale on commission. Therefore, we have to decide, the House having accepted the general principle, whether the principle in my Amendment is susceptible of application to the fishing industry. In order to convince the House that it is, I propose to read the recommendation of the Food Council of 1927 on this proposal. It was recommended by the Food Council, supported by the Committee on the Fishing Industry, which reported to the National Government from 1931 to 1935, and it was accepted as reasonable by the London Fish Trade Association. Therefore, the House is now being offered a proposal which is accepted in principle, which the Government accepted in 1934, the London Fish Trade Association accepted as reasonable, and which has been recommended to the House by every committee charged to examine the subject now before us.
I hope that I have satisfied the House that this is no new and revolutionary proposal, and I will now explain the proposal. When fish is landed at the port, the port wholesaler rings up all the inland markets, such as Billingsgate and so on, to ascertain in which of those markets he is likely to obtain the most favourable prices. Fish is a perishable commodity. He is not able, save in exceptional circumstances, to ice his fish and keep it for considerable periods, but he has to dispose of it at the best price it will fetch. Frequently he has no time to make this

preliminary arrangement, but has a standing arrangement, which he may have with an inland wholesaler, who takes the fish and sells it on commission, which is generally 5 per cent., for the best price it will fetch. In these circumstances he is very largely at the mercy, and certainly he must rely upon the integrity of, the inland wholesaler. The practice, as it obtains at present, is for the inland wholesaler to offer him no account whatever of the manner in which the fish has been disposed of. The inland wholesaler merely sends him a remittance, with, occasionally, some rough indications of the deductions which have been made.
This practice has given rise to serious abuses. There have been cases where porterage has been excessively charged. It used to be the practice at Billingsgate for a porter to be paid a nominal sum of 6d. for every box of fish he carried. Perhaps that was a fair reward in the days when the fish was not handled in such large quantities in those markets as it is to-day, when a porter could handle enough boxes of fish to bring him in a return in one day of about £. It is not impossible, under conditions as they exist to-day, for an inland wholesaler to make an additional profit. Instead of paying the porter 6d. a box, which would entitle him to£, he would pay him 7s. 6d. or 10s. for his trouble and would, nevertheless, charge to the port wholesaler the full amount of 6d. a box. There are various other practices, such as charging for the boxes and so on. These are, however, only the minor abuses which have crept in. If these alone had been the abuses, I should perhaps not have brought forward the Amendment, and the Bill, which was presented to the House in 1934, would never have been drafted.
The main abuse which has crept in has been that the inland wholesaler to whom the fish has been offered for sale on commission, instead of selling it in the open market for the best price it would fetch, has, if business has been slack or if he could offer any excuse, immediately bought the fish himself. Instead of acting as an agent, he has acted as a principal and has resold the fish to somebody else, and, instead of receiving 5 per cent., has perhaps received, 15, 20, 30 or even 50 per cent. profit. There has been no obligation upon the inland wholesaler to disclose that he is acting as a principal instead of as an agent, with the result


that widespread discontent has arisen because of this practice. There have been a few cases where port wholesalers have been able to detect these malpractices. I have myself discussed the matter with port wholesalers, who have been able to follow their fish by surreptitious means from the time that it reached the inland market to the time at which it was sold to the consumer. Fish, in respect of which the 5 per cent. commission has been paid, has been resold in the inland market for a much greater sum.

Mr. Loftus: Do not the abuses which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned also occur in the sale on commission of foreign imported fish, and would his Amendment actually include fish imported from abroad?

Mr. Garro Jones: I have no doubt that if an inland wholesaler is false in one thing he will be false in all. We are not charged with protecting the interests of foreign consignors. Our job, mine in particular and that of the hon. Member, is to protect the interests of the port wholesaler, and incidentally of the producer. I am not going to ask the House to take my word for this. I propose to read the report upon this very subject issued by the Food Council in 1927. I have ample evidence to show that the practice has not diminished during the intervening period. This is what the Food Council said:
The fact that salesmen in the inland markets act both as merchants, buying and selling fish on their own account, and as commission salesmen on behalf of port wholesalers, has given rise to complaint.
Some witnesses representing associations of port wholesalers stated that the salesmen at inland markets, when acting on a commission basis on behalf of a sender at the port do not always conduct genuine sales, but (if it suits them) sell the fish at a low price on commission to themselves, later on reselling and taking a merchant's profit as well as a commission.
A further complaint is that the commission salesman does not return to the sender—
That is, the sender at the port—
the actual prices received for the individual consignments, but either the price which he considers fair, this price being in fact lower than the actual market price.
I will not read the rest. I have read the substance of it. There was a later committee which reported in a similar strain.

This is what the Committee on the Fish Industry reported to the first National Government in 1932:
There is evidence that the present system can be and sometimes is abused.
The Committee recommended as follows:
The root of the complaint lies in the fact that salesmen act both as merchants, buying and selling fish on their own account, and as commission salesmen on behalf of port wholesalers. Such a state of affairs inevitably leads to abuse.
When we are attempting to reorganise this industry it is not necessary, in order to accomplish this, to fling reckless charges about, but what happens is this: If the hon. Member for Grimsby (Sir W. Womersley) sends a box of cod and a box of soles to Billingsgate and the cod is sold for 4d. a pound and the sole for 1s. 4d. a pound, the inland wholesaler will merely send him back an account showing that he had an average price for the whole consignment of 10d. per lb., and there would be various deductions. It would be quite impossible for the consignor to ascertain what price each separate consignment made. It is not too much to say that the port wholesaler has been absolutely at the mercy of the inland wholesaler in the price he obtains for his fish. However honest Billingsgate fish merchants may be—I regret to say that in the report of Government Committees they have not received very admirable reports as regards their practices—I say that we are not sufficiently reorganising this industry unless we provide some system under which the port wholesaler is able to keep a better check on what happens to his fish when it reaches the inland market.
I am making here an appeal for the producer. In private conversations which hon. Members frequently have with each other we are all agreed that the producer is passing through a time of difficulty. It is the same in agriculture and in coal-mining as it is in the fishing industry. But it has proved more difficult for the producer to organise in his own interests than it is for the intermediary sections of the industry. The very fact that the producer has been having such a difficult time has made it more difficult for him to provide funds for organisation, and this has increased the disadvantage in which he stands in


relation to the other sections of the industry. I am asking the Minister to provide some machinery to meet this situation.
Of all producers I think producers in the fishing industry ought to receive consideration from the House. The hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, North (Sir R. Keyes) has frequently described in terms of eulogy the work of the fishermen and those associated with them. I have heard him say that in the days when he was commanding the Dover Patrol they did not care whether they lived or died in the discharge of their duty. These men are passing through a time of greater hardship and financial difficulty than almost any other section of the community. They are having an extremely difficult time. These malpractices—I must use that word—of the inland wholesaler are increasing the difficulties under which they labour, and while we are reorganising the industry it is an essential part of the programme that we should give some additional safeguard for those who actually produce the fish which is handled in the inland market.

Mr. Ede: I beg to second the Amendment.

6.22 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I may say at once that I propose to accept the principle of the Amendment. I think the hon. Member has made out a case for something of this kind to be done. The only point I want to consider is whether it is better to give the Commission power to make regulations or whether it would not be better, in fact, to follow the precedent in the Horticultural Produce (Sales on Commission) Act and make those terms or something like them a statutory obligation in the Bill. As that is a matter of some importance I should like further time to consider it. There is one point about the form of the Amendment on which I am not quite satisfied. It deals with any fish consigned for sale on commission. This part of the Bill deals with white fish and, therefore, it would be necessary to confine the Amendment to white fish. But I will reconsider the matter and try to give effect to it in the best form.

Mr. Garro Jones: I thank the Minister very much for what I believe will be a

most substantial concession to the producer, and with the leave of the House I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 6, line 29, to leave out from "fish" to the end of line 31.
This arises out of a discussion in Committee. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) mentioned a doubt as to whether power to inspect documents includes a power to make copies of them. In order to make sure that the Commission had such power I accepted an Amendment of the hon. Member, subject to reconsideration. I am now completely satisfied that as a general rule of law the right to inspect documents always carries with it the right to make extracts and copies. If we leave these words in, it might cast a doubt on the law.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Submission of marketing schemes to Ministers.)

6.24 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I beg to move, in page 7, line 9, to leave out "smoking."
There is also a consequential Amendment on Clause 10. I do not know whether hon. Members know what smoking really is. For many years smoking has been part of the wholesalers' business. It is quite possible that 75 per cent. of the wholesalers also deal in smoking, and it is probably also true that there is no place where a wholesaler's right to take part in the smoking trade is not recognised. It is certainly recognised in all the principal ports. The wholesaler generally specialises in smoked haddocks and smoked herring, but it also provides for other commodities which he cannot sell or which for other reasons he wishes to keep. It provides a most important outlet for any surplus left over at the end of the day. As far as the retailer is concerned probably only about 50 per cent. deal in smoking, and this is probably a diminishing number because smoking places, that is, where smoking is carried out, are not very popular with local authorities. For that reason this business is more suitable for the wholesaler who has larger premises. It is no good putting up a smoking house in a built-up area.
There appears to be some doubt whether a wholesaler can enter a marketing scheme, that is of the wholesaler who has a certain amount of smoking trade as well. The question is, can he under the Clause enter a marketing scheme in any of the other trades in which he is interested? Will the fact that he deals in smoked fish prevent his going in for any other marketing scheme? If a wholesaler wishes to have a marketing scheme for smoked fish in addition to his other activities, can he, under the Bill, go in for a marketing scheme? The smoked fish trade wishes to be as well organised as any other section of the industry and to have a marketing scheme of their own. If the Amendment were accepted there would have to be further Amendments in the Bill, because they would become what is called a designated trade, but the trade would like to be reassured on the two points I have mentioned, and I hope I shall get a reply from the Minister.

Sir A. Lambert Ward: I beg to second the Amendment.

6.28 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The hon. and gallant Member has asked two questions: first, what is the position of a wholesaler who indulges in smoking as a sideline to his normal business—will he be prevented from entering into any marketing scheme? He will not be prevented from entering into a marketing scheme as a wholesaler, but with regard to the processing side of his business the hon. and gallant Member will recollect that he is dealt with in Clause 2 where it refers to the business of curing, salting, drying, smoking or canning white fish, which make together one designated business. The mere fact of removing smoking from this Clause would not make smoking by itself a designated business. Under the Bill all these processing businesses are governed by regulations made by the Commission, in contrast to the business of production and distribution for which the Clause enables marketing schemes to be made. That principle was adopted because it did not seem necessary to create the elaborate organisation of a marketing scheme for processing business as such. Power in the hands of the Commission to make regulations designed to guarantee quality seemed to be the best way of bringing up the level of this business and improve

its general efficiency. My answer to the hon. and gallant Member is that even if the Amendment were carried it would not be possible for the smoking business, as such, to have a marketing scheme of its own.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I hope my right hon. Friend will realise that I mentioned that if this Amendment were adopted it would require certain consequential Amendments.

Mr. Morrison: I appreciate that, but as I have pointed out, the wholesaler who smokes can join a wholesalers' marketing scheme, and the Commission have power to make regulations with regard to the processing businesses. I hope that in these circumstances my hon. and gallant Friend will not press his Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 8.—(Marketing provisions of producers' marketing schemes.)

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to move, in page 9, line 10, to leave out sub-paragraph (i).
This sub-paragraph gives to the Commission power to restrict supplies of white fish. In order to understand what is conveyed by that, we must consider the present situation in the industry. There is at the present time an embargo on the landing of white fish which operates during three months of the year. Until recently it operated for four months of the year, but it was thought advisable to limit it to three months. The purpose of that embargo is to assist the producer by raising the price level, as it is felt that, owing to very heavy landings of fish, a glut on the market is created, as a consequence of which the price sags, to the detriment of the producers of the fish. But if the Commission have power to continue, under this Measure, what amounts to an embargo which may operate during any part of the year—if they are given the power to limit the landings of fish—we feel that it will have very adverse effects on the persons whom it is intended to benefit by this Bill, that is to say, the producers themselves.
Recently, I received a copy of a periodical devoted to the interests of the fish trade, and I learned that in one of


the largest of our fishing ports, Grimsby, as a consequence of a decision which had been announced regarding the intention of the Grimsby Trawlers Association to tie up many of their trawlers, it was expected that half of the North Sea fleet might be tied up by the summer. Obviously that would mean a limitation in the supply of fish landings. But it has other consequences which I beg hon. Members to note. The most serious consequence is that it would force out of employment a large number of the men. I observed from the periodical that meetings of fishermen thrown out of work by the restriction were being held both in Grimsby and in Hull, and I noted also that the hon. Gentleman the Assistant Postmaster - General, who represents Grimsby, and the hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law), were in touch with the fishermen and were looking after the interests of the crews in Grimsby and Hull. It was further suggested that, because of the serious effect on the men arising out of the tying up of the trawlers, a deputation would be sent to the Minister to ascertain whether it was possible for him, in this Bill, to devise some expedient which would enable the trawlers to operate and thus provide more regular employment for the men. There is another factor to which I ask the House to pay some attention; it is the effect on the price level of fish, not to the ultimate consumers, but in the fishing ports. It was stated in that periodical that, owing to the restriction, prices were soaring and the trawlers were paying. They do not always pay, but because of the accelerated restriction, as it may be properly described, they were paying; and the statement went on to say:
We have had quite a number of trips well over the £1,500 mark, and two deep-water boats have nearly touched the £2,000 figure.
Things were rather better than usual.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Sir Walter Womersley): It was the bad weather.

Mr. Shinwell: I do not know whether the bad weather had anything to do with it, but according to the periodical, the restrictions placed on landings had something to do with it. Those restrictions were partly voluntary in character, although they were to some extent stimulated by the 1933 Act. In this Measure

we are to have restrictions by Statute, which is quite a different thing, and we must consider what the effects will be. I wish to make it clear that hon. Members on this side of the House are not opposed to regulation and reorganisation in this industry, for we appreciate the need for it, as indeed we appreciate the need for it in respect of other national industries; but although we are not opposed to regulation where it benefits the producer, we are very much opposed to it if it brings about a kind of restriction which can afford no possible benefit to the producer and if it leads to excessive unemployment. Therefore, we propose that the power which it is proposed to vest in the Commission
For determining from time to time the quantity of white fish which may be sold by any person registered under the scheme.
should be deleted from the Bill. It is true that, unless some other device was found for causing a greater consumption of fish, the proposal I am making would defeat its own purpose; and it is to that aspect that I will now turn. In the Second Reading Debate on this Bill, I said that the malady which troubles the white fish industry is not so much an excessive supply as a low consumption of fish. It is true that in certain other industries devices have been employed to restrict production. It has been done in the coal industry, for example, but that is a contracting industry, in regard to which it appears unlikely that, if things remain as they are, it will be possible to gain new markets and to expand the trade. The fishing industry is an industry that ought not to be contracting. It supplies a necessary article of food. If it could be demonstrated that people were consuming too much fish, the case would be made out for restriction; but as we saw from the report of the Duncan Commission, the people of this country are consuming—I will not commit myself to the figure I used in the Second Reading Debate, but will take a more generous one—no more than from 30 to 40 lbs. of fish per head per annum. That is a small consumption. The question arises whether the commission ought not to devote itself rather more to stimulating the demand for fish than restricting the supply.
There is another matter to which I wish to refer. This Bill affects to a considerable degree a section of the com-


munity which renders a very useful service; I refer to fish friers, who are affected by restricted supplies, more particularly by the reaction on the price level. Recently, they have made some grave complaints about the effect of the embargo and the restriction employed in the industry. I have seen several figures, but I think it may be said with truth that the consequence of the embargo, which affects the sort of fish ordinarily used by the fish friers—cod, which comprises rather more than 50 per cent. of the fish landed on our shores—is that they have either to force up the price of the article to the consumers, who cannot afford a high price because they are usually impoverished working-class people, or—and this is their allegation—to close down their premises. Those are not facts within my own knowledge, but are statements made by the fish friers individually and through their association, statements which frequently appear in the periodical associated with their interests. I believe that hon. Members have received deputations from these people. Clearly, if we are to bring about a greater consumption of fish, the very last thing we should do is to force the fish friers to pay higher prices, for that would lead to a lower consumption and not a higher one.
In view of these considerations, which could be further amplified, I hope the right hon. Gentleman will agree to delete from the Bill this power which it is proposed to vest in the Commission, and ask the Commission to occupy itself rather more with the means of expanding the market by keeping the price at a relatively low level. That would have the effect of reducing the overhead expenses of the trawler owners and those responsible for the distribution of fish supplies, and would maintain more regularity of employment among fishermen. I understand that it is the desire of the right hon. Gentleman and the Government, as, indeed, I am sure it is of all hon. Members, to do something for the fishermen in respect of wages, arising out of the price level, and in respect of employment. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider these matters.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. R. Law: The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) said that he and his friends were not opposed to the principle of regulation and control in the

industry, but were opposed to the principle of restriction. I put it to him that, in practice, it would be impossible to get any reasonable control by the Commission or the Board unless there was, at any rate, some measure of restriction as well. To take only one case, the case of the trip allotment, I think the hon. Member will agree that the trip allotment is probably a desirable thing, not so much from the point of view of increasing the price of fish, as from the point of view of improving the quality. If boats stay out too long, until they are packed up to the hatches with fish, the fish is bruised and spoiled. You must, therefore, if you are to improve the quality of the fish, have a restriction on the quantity in the form of a trip allotment.
The hon. Member says, further, that the trouble with the producing side of the industry is not over-production but under-consumption. I am prepared to agree with that view, but whether it is due to over-production or under-consumption, the fact remains that there has been in the last few years a fundamental lack of balance in the fishing industry. That lack of balance has already had terrible effects and unless you can remedy it, you will never be able to increase consumption because the producing side of the industry will just drift from bad to worse. If the hon. Member considers what has happend since 1929, I think he must agree with that view. In 1929 the proceeds of the fishing industry in this country were in the neighbourhood of £15,000,000. In 1937 that figure had dropped to £12,000,000. In 1929 the catch was in the neighbourhood of 12,000,000 hundredweights, and in 1937 it was 16,000,000 hundredweights. In other words, a much bigger catch realised a much smaller price. That is a lack of balance in the economics of the industry which must be rectified immediately and it can only be rectified, at the moment, by some restriction on production. The hon. Member referred to the Northern Waters Order and he will not consider me discourteous if I say that I did not quite understand the object of his reference. I am not sure whether he was maintaining that the restrictions under the Northern Waters Order were ineffective for their purpose, and that there-


fore the restrictions under this Bill would be ineffective for their purpose.

Mr. Shinwell: The argument which I was trying to use was that, so far, the effect of the embargo had been to put a large number of trawlers out of action, and to cause excessive unemployment.

Mr. Law: I am still not sure what the hon. Member meant. He is referring now, I take it, to the laying up of 20 per cent. of the trawler fleet. He referred earlier to the embargo under the Northern Waters Order.

Mr. Shinwell: In respect of the embargo to which the hon. Member referred, the fish friers have made great complaints about the effect on their trade of the embargo period.

Mr. Law: I agree, and I now follow what the hon. Member was maintaining about the Northern Waters Order. That Order had a serious effect on the fish friers as he says but if there had been no Northern Waters Order the effect on the producers might have been much worse. However, that is hypothetical. I think the hon. Member ought to bear in mind that under the Bill there is no obligation to continue the Northern Waters Order.

Mr. Shinwell: The point to which I was addressing myself was that in this Bill there was a general power vested in the Commission, which might have the effect of operating the embargo, not through three months of the year, but through many more months of the year.

Mr. Law: I see the hon. Member's point, but until this Bill is on the Statute Book, the Minister is compelled by the Act of 1933 to institute the Northern Waters Order. This Bill is intended to amend the Act of 1933 to this extent, that there will no longer be that compulsion on the Minister, and it is far more likely, I hope and believe, that the effect of the Bill will be not to increase the period of restriction under the Order from three months to 12, but to reduce it from three months, say, to one month, or perhaps do away with it altogether and substitute some more reasonable form of restriction.

6.51 p.m.

Mr. Foot: The House will have observed that my hon. Friends and I have also put down an Amendment for the deletion

of this sub-paragraph, but we have done so for reasons which are slightly different from those of hon. Members above the Gangway. As a general rule, we are strongly opposed to any Measure which is designed to restrict output. Unlike hon. Members above the Gangway, we are believers in the principle of private enterprise, and in our view it involves the complete destruction, of private enterprise when you prevent a man from enlarging his business. That is what you are likely to do when you introduce a provision of this kind which limits the quantity that a man may sell. The hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law) has spoken of the Northern Waters Order. He will agree that, in that case, a measure of restriction was brought in, but it was brought in for an entirely different purpose.
On the Second Reading of the Bill I ventured to point out that in the fishing industry there was a case to be made out for a form of restriction, that is to say, restriction on the quantity of fish which is being taken out of the sea. I think it is agreed that the North Sea is being, and has been for a considerable period, over-fished, and we are feeling the results of that process. If the Government were able at some future time to enter into an agreement with the other countries which fish in the North Sea, as a result of which there would be a general limitation on the quantity of fish taken out of the North Sea, and if they were then to introduce legislation to implement that agreement, as far as this country is concerned, I should be in favour of such legislation. But as I read the Bill that is not its purpose. Its purpose is entirely different from that which was intended by the Northern Waters Order. As a result of this we may limit the quantity of fish, of British taking, which may be sold, but from the point of view of the future of the industry, that is not going to be much use if other countries are still to be free to increase their fishing capacity, as I believe some of them are doing, and to continue taking larger and larger quantities out of the North Sea. Therefore, I draw a distinction between the two forms of restriction. I say that this form is designed to prevent the man engaged in business from increasing his business, by giving him a definite quota of output which, probably, he will not be allowed to exceed. For that reason,


we shall certainly support the Amendment.

6.57 p.m.

Mr. Petherick: I agree with a great deal of what has been said by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) though for somewhat different reasons from those advanced by him. The idea of the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) in this Amendment is, I think, fairly consistent with the general view of his party. He seems to take the view that any possible board administering any sort of marketing scheme should not have the power to limit output and catches. He suggests that such a power is implied in the Bill as at present drafted. I suppose the view which he expresses is consistent to this extent with the views of the party opposite, that his hon. Friends to do them justice have always objected to what they call "organising scarcity," in other words causing restrictions. I can see nothing particularly objectionable in restriction of output when it is the result of agreement voluntarily entered into by the people concerned, but I think we have to be extremely careful about giving a board powers to restrict output in this way.
My particular objection to the Bill as it stands is that it is limiting the output of our own people or giving the board power to do so, while we are doing nothing to restrict further imports of foreign fish. I must be careful not to transgress the bounds of order on this point, and I will therefore deal very briefly with it. If one considers the Duncan Report and the previous report, which stated that the British fishing industry could supply all the needs of this country, with fish caught by our own boats, one wonders why we should go on with proposals to limit the capacity of our own fishing fleets, and at the same time take no further steps to limit the imports of foreign fish. The hon. Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law) referred to the fact that 20 per cent. of the trawler capacity in Hull has been laid up in the last few weeks. As one whose constituents in Cornwall suffer sometimes from the depredations of trawlers from up-country, I might be expected to be rather pleased about that, but I am not. Looking at it from the broadest point of view, it is deplorable that we should lay up 20 per cent. of the Hull fishing fleet

and still allow all this foreign fish to come in. Therefore, although I do not in general object to restriction schemes where they are advisable, I must wholly object to a restriction scheme, particularly with Governmental sanction, applied only to our people in this country when nothing is being done to limit the import of foreign fish.

7.1 p.m.

Mr. Loftus: We all dislike the idea of restriction. We all feel that we want to increase the sale of fish to a very great degree, and that has been done in other countries. It has been done recently in Germany. You will never get increased consumption of fish unless you get a general level of good quality, and you will never get a general level of good quality unless you have power to restrict. If the big trawlers that go out from Hull make comparatively short voyages and land their fish as quickly as possible it is of medium good quality, but if it is kept a long time upon ice it is of poor quality. If you sell poor quality fish it lowers consumption. The herring trade has been repeatedly damaged by bad quality fish being landed and sold. Some power of restriction of landing is necessary in the interest of bringing about increased fish consumption. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) said that there was over-fishing in the North Sea and that possibly in the future international regulation might come, and then would be the time for the Government to seek these powers. But these conventions and international agreements may come quite suddenly. We already regulate the size of meshes and the size of fish to be landed. That has come during the last 12 months and there, again, for the sake of the preservation of the fishing grounds themselves, you must have power to regulate, and later on by international agreement the Government can go still further in conserving the stock of fish in the North Sea.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick) referred to the landing of foreign fish. It seems difficult to accept the limitation of the catching power of British vessels if at the same time there is to be increased landing of foreign fish. But I take some comfort from the fact that in Committee we got very definite assurances from the Minister that the Government would see


to it that, if there were this power of regulation, they would pledge themselves that that reorganisation would not be wrecked by increased imports of foreign fish.

7.6 p.m.

Sir D. Thomson: Speaking for Scottish ports, and particularly Aberdeen, I hope very much that the Amendment will not be accepted, and that the limitation will be retained in the Bill. I agree that the real thing we want to do is to expand the market, and we do not want to see foreign fish landed while our trawlers are laid up. But we feel that the balance of the trade is upset when there is too much cheap fish coming in, distant water fish of low quality, and the taste in fish is being reduced. High-class fish landed in the north is falling into disfavour. I was disturbed to hear my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law) say that the Northern Waters Order might lapse after the Bill came in because I remember that the Duncan Report stated that a large quantity of the fish that arrives in the summer months is in thoroughly poor condition. I hope nothing will be done to permit the landing of fish from these northern waters which is not always in good condition, and thereby prejudices the market throughout the country. I hope the limitation will be kept in the Bill and that the Commission will have power to limit the landing of excessive quantities, which may do harm to the market throughout the country.

7.9 P.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I am glad to hear that the Liberal party at last seems to recognise that there is a danger in the importation of foreign fish.

Mr. Foot: I said nothing whatever about the importation of foreign fish. I was speaking of fishing in the North Sea.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: I must have entirely misunderstood the hon. Member, and I think everyone else must have misunderstood him. I am sorry he has gone back on what he said. I do not think it is recognised what a difference there is between fish and ordinary agricultural commodities, because when you limit ordinary agricultural commodities you store them, but you cannot store fish. For that reason alone it is necessary to

have power to limit landings. While there may be an argument for some form of cold storage introduced into ships for time of emergency, such as war, it is entirely necessary that there should be power to restrict landings. Then the consumption will grow more and more. I say that to the Liberal party.

Mr. Holdsworth: I know nothing about the Bill, but I should like the hon. and gallant Gentleman to point out to me where it limits landings.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: It is obvious that, if you cannot sell, it is no use landing.

Mr. Holdsworth: It does not refer to landing but to selling.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: May I leave it at the hon. Member saying that he does not understand the Bill. I should like to ask the Minister if there is any way in which an undertaking which has landed surplus fish can hand it over to a manure factory. It would be a great pity if it had to be dumped into the sea.

7.13 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I think the House might well be reminded of one point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) which must have come as a surprise to many who served on the Committee, that over half the fish that is landed is disposed of through fish friers' shops and reaches the consumer in that way. Everyone who studies the social development of the countryside knows the difference that has been made to the standard of food of large sections of the people by the growth of the fish-frying industry in recent years. One received representations during the Committee stage that some of the restrictions previously imposed had made very considerable difficulties for the fish friers in maintaining an adequate supply. I hope that in any future restrictions, if the Amendment is defeated, whoever is responsible for administering them will have the history of past restrictions in mind so that that may not occur again. I do not accept the view that restriction is a good thing in itself. I believe the proper thing to endeavour to do is to increase consumption. I am sure that the sale of suitable fish by fish friers—and I say advisedly "suitable fish"—has been a very considerable contribution to the


improved nourishment of the people, and I hope that one thing that the organisation set up by this Bill will do will be to encourage people in the consumption of fish and make it possible for wholesome fish to be supplied to them at all periods of the year in quantities sufficient to enable the price to be such as will allow the poorest people to afford it. Anything that interferes with that process, I am sure, will be ultimately to the detriment of the industry, which can only stand to gain if fish becomes increasingly available for persons of the smallest means.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: The hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) said that his motive in moving the Amendment was not to interfere with regulation but to increase the consumption of white fish in this country. He also said that he wished to regularise employment. These are also our objects and the objects of the Bill. I entirely agree with the purpose of the hon. Gentleman. He gave figures in regard to the consumption of fish per head, but those that I have are slightly higher. According to our figures at the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries, the consumption of fish per head from 1931 to 1934 was 45 lbs., in 1935, 46 lbs., and in 1936, 48 lbs. I believe that is the highest consumption per head of any country in Europe.

Mr. Shinwell: White fish alone?

Mr. Wedderburn: Yes. I agree that it is desirable to increase the consumption of white fish. How is that to be done? By reorganising the industry, and by increasing the demand for white fish. The principal means of achieving that in this Bill is by regulation under marketing schemes, the desired effect being to check surplus landings from distant quarters and to secure landings of a higher proportion of fish caught in near waters and in a fit condition. That is the main object of the marketing proposals—to reduce the import of fish brought here from a great distance in a bad condition, which, by being thrown on the market, may spoil the demand for better quality fish. We believe that, by pursuing that method, we shall in the long run regularise the employment of the fishermen and place it on a more secure basis. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) said that

he and his party supported the Amendment from motives differing from those of hon. Members above the Gangway. He said he was in favour of the Amendment because, unlike the party opposite, he was in favour of private enterprise. I also am in favour of private enterprise, but I think we ought to distinguish between private enterprise and industrial anarchy. I believe that the Anarchists and the Communists, who are now fortuitously united in the conflict in Spain, are in reality diametrically opposite to each other in their outlook upon life.

Mr. Alexander: On a point of Order. Are we to be permitted to reply to the hon. Gentleman on this very interesting subject?

Mr. Speaker: I think the hon. Member was merely using it as an illustration.

Mr. Alexander: The statement was very specific as to what were the objectives of these combined Anarchists and Communists.

Mr. Wedderburn: It was an example prompted by the remarks of my hon. Friend, but it seemed to me interesting and relative to the point at issue. The object of marketing policy is to steer the best course between anarchy on the one hand and Communism on the other. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Dundee acted for the same reason that he opposed the provisions of the Coal Bill, to which the hon. Member for Sea-ham referred. I do not think the analogy is a bad one, because I should say that there are lots of people in the country who ought to buy more coal, as well as lots of people who ought to be eating more fish. Of course, the effect of the policy of rationing coal may be in some districts to throw some men out of work, although we believe that in the long run the proper organisation of the industry will lead to more facilities for employment. I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment, which would prevent the producer marketing boards set up under this Bill from possessing the power of the quantitative regulation of sale; that is the power conferred on marketing boards set up under the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1931. As my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hull (Mr. Law) put it very well,


the chief lack of the fishing industry is a lack of balance, and it is in order to redress that lack of balance that this power is an essential part of the Bill.

7.23 p.m.

Mr. Alexander: It is interesting to learn that the kind of political policy that is behind this Bill is to steer a middle way between anarchy and Communism. I hope that we are not to understand from that that the kind of corporate legislation of which the Government are now becoming so prolific means that their idea of the middle way between anarchy and Communism is something in the nature of Fascism.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that can be related to anything that the Under-Secretary said.

Mr. Alexander: I do not want to pursue it in a general way, but only to deal with what the Under-Secretary has been saying about the powers of regulation and restriction, because when he begins to use these two extremes and to say that he is going in between the two, I begin to remember what is called the corporate State, and this is the kind of thing which is dealt with usually in what is termed the corporate State. All that we are really asking in our Amendment is that the power given in the Clause to restrict the sale of fish should be removed. It seems to us that at this time, when working people over and over again are unable, with their restricted incomes, to buy what is requisite and necessary to keep life at a decent standard, to restrict the sale of fish, which is available and which has proved in the past, through its distribution by the Fish Friers Association, to be so valuable, is really nonsense.

In view of what my hon. Friend the Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) put before the House with regard to the experience of the Fish Friers Association in that respect, I think there is a very strong case for the Amendment, which the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, in his pursuit of various opinions about anarchy and Communism, has not answered.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Holdsworth: I had not intended to speak on this Amendment but for the remarks of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. What did he mean by anarchy in this connection? The Amendment asks that there shall be no restriction of sale, or, in other words, that the poor people of this country who like to eat the best white fish shall be enabled to take advantage, if there is a landing, of the opportunity of getting cheap food. The Liberal party stands for that. I do not mind the noun that the Under-Secretary attaches to that particular thing, and I make no apology whatever for believing in some form of distribution which will enable the people of this country to enjoy God's gifts to men. If I am the one who, more probably than any other Member, can plead guilty to believing that men should have the opportunity of enjoying all the gifts of Nature, I do not mind what the Under-Secretary terms it. If the hon. Gentleman presses the Amendment, I shall have the greatest pleasure in supporting it, even if it is termed anarchy.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 168; Noes, 109

Division No. 170.
AYES.
[7.27 p.m.


Acland-Troyle, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Butcher, H. W.
Dawson, Sir P.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Campbell, Sir E. T.
De la Bère, R.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P, G
Cartland, J. R. H.
Denman, Hon. R. D.


Albery, Sir Irving
Cary, R. A.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side)


Allen, Col, J. Sandeman (B'knhead)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Eastwood, J. F.


Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (So'h Univ's)
Channon, H.
Edmondson, Major Sir J.


Apsley, Lord
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Clarke, Colonel R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Ellis, Sir G.


Balfour, G. (Hampstead)
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Emmott, C. E. G. C.


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Entwistle, Sir C. F.


Beechman, N. A.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Erskine-Hill, A. G.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Cox, H. B. Trevor
Findlay, Sir E.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Furness, S. N.


Brooklebank, Sir Edmund
Crooks, Sir J. S.
Gower, Sir R. V.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Cross, R. H.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Cruddas, Col. B.
Grant-Ferris, R.


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yaovll)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.




Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Marsden, Commander A.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Grimston, R. V.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.
Southby, Commander Sir A. R. J.


Gritten, W. G. Howard
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Spears, Brigadier-General E. L.


Guest, Maj. Hon. O. (C'mb'rw'll, N.W.)
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Spens. W. P.


Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Morris-Jones, Sir Henry
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Gunston, Capt. Sir D. W.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)


Hannah, I. C.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)
Storey, S.


Harvey, Sir G.
Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.
Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.


Haslam, Henry (Horncastle)
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Strauss, E. A. (Soutbwark, N.)


Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G. A.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Hely-Hutchinson, M. R.
Peake, O.
Tasker. Sir R. I.


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Peters, Dr. S. J.
Tate, Mavis C.


Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Plugge, Capt. L. F.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Thomson, Sir J. D. W.


Higgs, W. F.
Proctor, Major H. A.

Titchfteld, Marquess of


Hills, Major Rt. Hon. J. W. (Ripon)
Ramsbotham, H.
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Holmes, J. S.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Wakefield, W. W.


Horsbrugh, Florence
Rayner, Major R. H.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Hume, Sir G. H.
Raid, W. Allan (Derby)
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Hunter, T.
Remer, J. R.
Ward, Irene M. B. (Wallsend)


Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


James, Wing-Commander A. W. H.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Watt, Major G. S. Harvie


Keeling, E. H.
Ropner, Colonel L.
Wayland, Sir W. A


Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Wedderburn, H. J. S.


Kerr, H. W. (Oldham)
Royds, Admiral Sir P. M. R.
Wells, S. R.


Lamb, Sir J. Q.
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel Sir E. A.
Whiteley, Major J. P. (Buckingham)


Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W)
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Leech, Sir J. W.
Russell, S. H. M. (Darwen)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Salmon, Sir I.
Wilson, Lt.-Col. Sir A. T. (Hitchin)


Lewis, O.
Salt, E. W.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Loftus, P. C.
Samuel, M. R. A.
Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount


Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C, G.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Wood, Hon. C. I. C.


McKie, J. H.
Shepperson, Sir E. W.
Wright, Wing-Commander J. A. C.


Maclay, Hon. J. P.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.



Manningham-Buller, Sir M.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen).
Captain Hope and Captain




Dugdale




NOES.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Gibson, R. (Greenock)
Paling, W.


Adamson, W. M.
Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Parker, J.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Pethick-Lawrence, Rt. Hon. F. W.


Ammon, C, G.
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Pritt, D. N.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Grenfell, D. R.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Banfield, J. W.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Ridley, G.


Barnes, A. J.
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Riley, B.


Barr, J.
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Ritson, J.


Bellenger F. J.
Groves, T. E.
Salter, Dr. A. (Bermondsey)


Benn, Rt. Hon. W. W.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Sexton, T. M.


Benson, G.
Hall, J. H. (Whitaechapel)
Shinwell, E.


Bevan, A.
Hardie, Agnes
Silkin, L.


Broad, F. A.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Simpson, F. B.


Brown, C. (Mansfield)
Harvey, T. E. (Eng. Univ's.)
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Buchanan, G.
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Charleton, H. C.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Smith, T. (Normanton)


Cluse, W. S.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Sorensen, R. W.


Cocks, F. S.
Holdsworth, H.
Stephen, C.


Cove, W. G.
Hopkin, D.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Jagger, J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Daggar, G.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Thorne, W.


Dalton, H.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Thurtle, E.


Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill)
Kelly, W. T.
Tinker, J. J.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Tomlinson, G.


Day, H.
Kirkwood, D.
Viant, S. P.


Do[...], W.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Walkden, A. G.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Lathan, G.
Watkins, F. C.


Ede, J. C.
Leonard, W.
Watson, W. MeL.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Leslie, J. R.
Westwood, J.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Macdonald, G. (Ince)
White, H. Graham


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
McEntee, V. La T.
Williams, D. (Swansea, E.)


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
MacLaren, A.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Foot, D. M.
Marshall, F.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Frankel, D.
Maxton, J.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Gardner, B. W.
Naylor, T. E.



Garro Jones, G. M.
Noel-Baker, P. J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Oliver, G. H.
Mr. Whiteley and Mr. Mathers.


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Owen, Major G



Question, "That this House do now adjourn," put, and agreed to.

7.37 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 9, line 18, after "adapted," to insert "offered or exposed."
The object of the Amendment is evident from its language. It is to include in the powers that may be conferred on a producers' marketing board under this Clause the power to determine the manner in which white fish shall be offered or exposed for sale by or on behalf of registered producers. Distributors' boards have that power, and it is only reasonable to give the same power to producers for their own fish.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 9.—(Licensing provisions of producers' marketing schemes.)

7.38 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 9, line 40, to leave out from "fish," to "to," in line 1, page 10.
When the Bill was in Committee we amended Clause 36 so as to alter the definition of the register of persons coming under the provisions of the Bill. The object of that Amendment was to prevent persons evading the Bill by registering in other ports, which might have been possible if the definition had not been amended. This and the following Amendments are consequential on that Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 10, line 2, leave out "that boat," and insert:
a fishing-boat registered in the United Kingdom or any other part of His Majesty's dominions, or from a British fishing-boat registered at any port of registry established by Order in Council under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

7.39 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I beg to move, in page 10, line 12, after "fee," to insert "not exceeding five shillings."
This is a comparatively small point. It will be observed that Clause 9 enables the producers' marketing scheme to do a number of things, among others to determine:
the period for which any licence granted under the scheme shall remain valid …‥ for the renewal and transfer of licences in such circumstances as may be specified in the scheme, and for enabling the board to charge, in respect of the grant, renewal or transfer of a licence, such fee as may be authorised by the scheme.

The purpose of this Amendment is to make sure that the fee shall be a moderate amount which will be well within the means of all those who want to apply for the licence. As I have pointed out before when a marketing scheme is brought before the House we are powerless to amend it in any respect. Therefore, we have to take it or leave it as a whole. The only opportunity that this House has of dealing with the amount of fee to be levied on the applicants for licences is now on the Report stage. The House should always be very jealous—it has been in the past—of conferring power to impose taxation. In substance this is a power to impose taxation, because a fee has to be paid by anyone who wants to continue his livelihood as a fisherman.

Mr. K. Griffith: I beg to second the Amendment.

7.41 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I appreciate the object which the hon. Member has in mind. It is, I take it, to make sure that the fees chargeable by the board are restricted to reasonable limits. I would like to put the case on the other side. It is unwise to specify the amount of the fee in the Bill. It is far better to have it in the scheme. The producers' scheme may find it just to impose a licensing fee upon a differing basis. It may not be on a flat rate, but may be on a graduated scale, related say, to the catching capacity of the boats so that the big producers will pay more and the little ones less. That may be found to be the most convenient and just way of fixing the fee that shall be paid.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 10, line 29, to leave out "sold," and to insert "landed."
During the Committee deliberations we substituted the word "sold" for "landed" under a misapprehension. It was my fault more than that of anyone else, for I did not appreciate the way in which the question was put. Consequently, we decided that the matter would have to be remedied later.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 10, line 43, after "and," to insert:
for securing that any quantity of white fish landed in contravention of any directions hav-


ing effect by virtue of sub-paragraph (ii) of this paragraph shall become the property of the board and may be disposed of by the board accordingly; and.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) raised the question of what was to happen to fish that it might not be possible to land legally, or that could not be sold because of the terms of this Bill. This Amendment is the answer to his question. It enables the fish to become the property of the board and to be disposed of in some useful manner.

Amendment agreed to.

7.44 P.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page II, line 18, to leave out from "fish," to "or," in line 21.
When we had this Bill under consideration in Committee many hon. Members were under the impression that the effect of the words which we now propose to leave out would be to afford some measure of protection to inshore fishermen. I am satisfied that that was a misapprehension. This Clause deals with the licensing powers of the board administering a marketing scheme, and there is no intention of bringing the inshore fishermen within such a scheme. The improved marketing organisation for inshore fishermen is set out in Clause 19. The persons to whom Clause 19 refers are specifically described as persons for whom a marketing scheme would be of no avail, or words to that effect. This marketing scheme is designed to meet the needs of the deep-sea section of the industry, and the inshore fishermen will have their own provision. I have considered this matter closely since the Committee stage, and have found it very difficult to apprehend what the exact effect of the words we are proposing to leave out would be in practice. If they have any meaning, they would limit the discretion of the board in the granting of boat licences. Apart from the necessary safeguards provided in the Bill against arbitrary refusal to grant licences, the fewer shackles we place on the board the better. The consideration which the board have to bear in mind is the good of the white fish industry as a whole. If they are to have regard to these other matters:
The increase or decrease since the first day of January, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven, of the fishing fleet at the particular port

or any other date of that kind, they would be very much limited in their power to licence boats.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. Loftus: I moved in Committee the insertion of the words which are now proposed to be left out, and after a very long discussion I carried the Amendment. I think there were only three or at the most four votes against the Amendment

Mr. Ede: Five.

Mr. Loftus: I do not recognise the pur. pose of the Amendment as described now by my right hon. Friend. He said that the purpose for which I moved the Amendment was to deal with inshore fishermen.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: That would not be true. I am certain that my hon. Friend moved his Amendment for another purpose. What I was referring to when I alluded to the inshore fishermen was the great body of support he received in the Committee upon that basis. I am sure that my hon. Friend in his own mind was perfectly clear as to the object of his Amendment.

Mr. Loftus: I am glad that my right hon. Friend confirms my recollection. The object of the Amendment was to secure this: During recent years there has been great variation, ups and downs, in the fortunes of the fishing ports. In some of the great modern ports, such as Hull and Grimsby, there has been an enormous increase in the number of fishing vessels, but simultaneously in the famous old ports, Dover, Brixham, Lowestoft and Ramsgate, there has been a great decrease in the number, and when I moved the Amendment I felt that regard should be had to that fact by the licensing authority. I thought that it would be extremely hard that a port which has been going downhill during recent years, and losing its fleet owing to the competition of the great ports of Hull and Grimsby, should not have an opportunity in happier times of rebuilding in part its fleet. I felt that it should not be stereotyped at its present low level. The object of the Amendment was to help the ports that have suffered the hard fate of going downhill owing to the competition of the great modern ports. That view commanded sympathy among all parties.

Mr. Ede: Hear, hear.

Mr. Loftus: I had a second Amendment designed with the same object, providing that licences should not be refused to boats 80 feet or below in length. I ask my right hon. Friend whether he cannot make some concession and give some assurance that those ports that have suffered so much will have some chance of building a smaller type of boat, not in competition with the big trawlers of Hull. I make this appeal the more strongly because I felt that when I carried my Amendment I might have carried two other Amendments against the Government. However, I thought that there was great virtue in moderation, and that if I rested content with this one victory, my right hon. Friend would not dream of reversing it, but that if I pressed forward and secured three defeats for the Government he might reverse the lot. I hope that he will bear that point in mind. I have not a very clear recollection of all the other details, but there was a case made out for other Amendments which I tried to put forward. I hope my right hon. Friend will do his best to make some concession in order to help the smaller ports.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Ede: When I saw the Minister's Amendment on the Order Paper I was filled with amazement, because I have a very clear recollection of the discussion that took place in Committee when the words now proposed to be left out were inserted. It was not a decision that was hastily reached. Towards the end of the proceedings on the seventh day, the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) moved his Amendment, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough (Mr. Alexander) suggested that in view of the importance of the matter the Committee might adjourn. On the eighth day, the following Thursday, the 3rd February, the hon. Member for Lowestoft again brought his Amendment before the Committee. It was supported in a speech by the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick). The Minister replied, and I do not think that his description of his attitude is borne out by what he said in his first reply in Committee to the hon. Member. The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) followed the Minister, and after my hon. Friend the Member for Morpeth (Mr. R. J. Taylor) had spoken, we proceeded to a Division.
The discussion had been carried on in a very friendly atmosphere, as most of the discussions were, after the Opposition had provided the right hon. Gentleman day after day with a quorum to carry on the business. It was an extraordinary Division, because the Minister was supported only by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Orr-Ewing), the hon. Member for the Partick Division of Glasgow (Mr. Arthur Young) and the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson). I thought it was a charitable act on the part of the hon. Member for Cheltenham, because I understand that he is denied the Whip of the party opposite. To have come to the rescue of the Minister in these circumstances showed a very forgiving disposition. Against the Minister the Government supporters were the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman), the hon. and gallant Member for East Grinstead (Colonel Clarke), the Noble Lady the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Viscountess Davidson), the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Harbord), the Senior Member for Dundee (Miss Horsbrugh), the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage), the hon. Member for South Nottingham (Mr. Markham), the hon. and gallant Member for Orkney and Shetland (Major Neven-Spence), the hon. Member for Penryn and Falmouth (Mr. Petherick), the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart), and the hon. Member for South Aberdeen (Sir D. Thomson).
In our endeavour to assist the cause of the enlightenment of hon. Members opposite, those Members of our party who were present threw in their weight with the supporters of the Amendment. Quite apart from our intervention, which might be written off as being dictated by a party spirit, the right hon. Gentleman was well and soundly beaten by those who normally support him. I was present throughout the discussion and have since refreshed my mind, and it was only after the decision had been reached, that the right hon. Gentleman attached any importance to the question of the inshore fishermen as having confused hon. Members of his own party who had deserted him. If a decision taken under such circumstances is to be reversed on nothing better than the statement that has been made to-night by the right hon. Gentle-


man, we might as well give up Committee proceedings, because if ever there was an occasion when there was an honest expression of opinion by a Committee against the advice of a Minister, with all the facts in front of them, that was the occasion.
I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not persevere in the attitude that he has adopted, and that he will accept the decision of the Committee. It is a very important matter. We have seen the way in which these regulation schemes can be operated unless some provision of this kind is inserted. I must remind the House of the classic case of hops. The acreage of hops was determined in regard to a year in which the planting had been very low, and every one has to go back to that standard year. They cannot have a greater acreage of hops than that of the standard year. If we are to have a standard number of ships, then we should have regard to the number not in the present depressed state of the industry but something that may be regarded as more reasonably approaching the normal conditions. That was the aim of the hon. Member for Lowestoft in moving his Amendment.
By taking the 1st January, 1927, we should have a date when the number of vessels operating from a port was more nearly what we ought to expect in normal times than the numbers that go out to-day. I do not think that anything the right hon. Gentleman has said to-night ought to alter the mind of anyone who served on the Committee, who heard the discussion and voted against the Government, and if the hon. Member for Lowestoft is minded to divide the House in order to retain his Amendment in the Bill, I shall have pleasure in going into the Lobby with him against the Government.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Beechman: As one of the survivors of the little battle to which the hon. Member has referred, I should like to say what was in my mind when I spoke on that occasion. The right hon. Gentleman has said that there was some confusion on the part of hon. Members because they thought that this Clause related to inshore fishermen. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend deduced that inference from the fact that the Amendment was supported by the

hon. Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson), whose division is very much inshore. I was not in any sort of confusion. It seemed to me that in the case of small ports which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) has shown, have gone downhill very much, it would be very wrong indeed if the allowance of boats was to be based on those very disastrous years. It is true that the figures which I gave apply very largely to what I may call inshore fishing ports, but there are places where there are larger craft, and what we wish to ensure is that fishermen with moderate-sized craft have their chance. There are not only inshore fishermen and large trawlers, but there are a large number of fishermen who operate with boats about 80 feet long. My right hon. Friend said that it would be unwise to fetter the discretion of the Commission in this matter. Even if we were to accept his Amendment discretion would still be fettered, and if we are to fetter the discretion of a Commission it had better be fettered in the right sort of way. For that reason I hope that my right hon. Friend will, in spite of the confusion which he thought arose in Committee, still allow us to think that that was a decisive victory.

8.3 p.m.

Sir D. Thomson: I am afraid that I am one of those who are repentant. I can only attribute my mistake to a confusion of mind, and I now see how very much better it will be to follow in future the fatherly advice of my right hon. Friend the Minister. My hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus) said that what he wanted was to avoid seeing the small ports lose their position owing to the competition of concerns with huge capital in ports like, for example, Hull or Grimsby. He said the new modern ports would get on top of the old ports.

Mr. Loftus: Surely they have already got on top of the old-fashioned ports, and my whole object was to give the latter a chance with a smaller type of boat, not in direct competition with the big ports with their huge trawlers.

Sir D. Thomson: I agree with my hon. Friend that those ports have got on top, and I think that what he wishes is to give the old ports a chance against their new competitors, with a different type of boat, although that is not specifically


stated in the Amendment. I have discovered that as far as Scotland is concerned, the effects of the Amendment inserted in Committee would be very unequal. The trade of certain ports has increased since 1927 and that of other ports has gone down. The fishing industry in Scotland as a whole has gone down, but in various ports it has increased and in others declined, and to limit the discretion of the Commission in some arbitrary way would lead to unequal and fortuitous results and would not, so far as the smaller trawler ports in Scotland are concerned, bring about the results contemplated by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft. I hope the House will support the deletion of these words.

8.5 p.m.

Mr. Foot: We shall all desire to offer our sympathy to the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Loftus). I understand that in the Committee he had twenty supporters and that like another famous character:
When alone he had gone
Halfway down Strath Canan,
Of his fighting tail
Just three were remaining.
Their numbers are rapidly diminishing. It is a remarkable thing that after a decision had been come to by a most emphatic majority in Committee upstairs the Minister should take the first opportunity, on getting back to the Floor of the House, of reversing the position. There is this difference, of course, between Debates in the House on Report stage and Debates in Committee upstairs, and that is that upstairs those who vote have heard the arguments and vote on them accordingly. Obviously that is what happened in Committee on this occasion. Now, if it should come to a Division, the Minister will be able to rely upon a huge majority of Members who have not heard a word of the discussion, and for that reason will, no doubt, loyally support him.

Mr. Petherick: I do not think an enormous number of the hon. Member's party have heard the discussion.

Mr. Foot: We have no responsibility for that, because I do not think there was a single Member of my party on that Committee. I hope that the 20 who were so ready to stand up for the interests

of small ports in Committee will stand by their attitude to-day. The Amendment which was inserted upstairs at the instance of the hon. Member for Lowestoft, and which it is now proposed to delete, seems a very reasonable one. There is to be a certain ground on which licences are to be given or refused. The board are to have in mind the sufficiency of the number of licences already in force; it does not say the sufficiency in any particular district or area. In determining the grant of licences the board might have in mind the number of licences in the whole country. They might, for instance, come to the conclusion that there was a sufficient number of trawlers in Scotland as a whole, and decide not to add to them for some time, and that would be a rather unfortunate situation, because they need have no regard to the needs of any particular district.
Let me give an example of what might happen. At the present time only four trawlers are operating from my constituency, Dundee. A year or two ago there were 10 or 11 trawlers, and I hope that we shall again increase the number. Suppose this scheme were in operation and the trawler owners in a place like Dundee wished to increase their fleet. The board might say, "We think there is already a sufficient number of trawlers on the East Coast of Scotland." Dundee is in the position of having always had a small trawling fleet. Though we do not send fish away from Dundee, we supply the local needs. If the words were allowed to remain in the Clause and the trawler owners were to ask for an increase of two or three trawlers, they would be able to point to the fact that although their present total was only four, they had 10 two years ago, which would be a perfectly proper consideration for the board to take into account. I very much regret that the Minister has taken a decision—because I am sure his Amendment will be passed—to override what was very nearly the unanimous decision of the Committee.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I feel that I ought to say a word upon this matter. I deeply regret having to take this course, and I assure the House that I only do so because I feel it to be in the real interests of the industry. I feel the greatest difficulty in asking the producers' board,


three or four years hence, when it has to deal with an entirely changed situation in the fishing industry, to limit its decisions by having regard to the position in 1927. That is an arbitrary date, and as my hon. Friend the Member for South Aberdeen (Sir D. Thomson) has said, if we were to take that date there would be very different results from port to port. I am sure the best course is to allow the board to have regard to the industry as a whole, without being restricted in the way suggested. I share entirely the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) as to the smaller or medium-sized fishing vessels. They are an important part of the fishing fleet, and although I do not think this is the right way to help them, I, and I am sure the Government, will bear their needs very much in mind.

Amendment agreed to.

8.13 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I beg to move, in page 11, line 22, to leave out sub-paragraph (ii).
This is the sub-paragraph which says:
On such other grounds (if any) as may be specified in the scheme.
We are dealing with a very important part of the Bill, the part which gives power to the board to say to a man whether or not he shall be allowed to continue in the occupation of fishing, or to engage in it for the first time. It is proposed to set up a complete licensing system. The refusal of a licence would be a serious matter for an applicant, because if he had been engaged in fishing before, as would be the case in the majority of applications, he would be deprived of the means of livelihood which he had formerly enjoyed.

Mr. Macquisten: That is, the freedom of the seas.

Sir Robert Tasker: Does that apply to architects?

Mr. Foot: Fortunately for their profession, the Government have not yet started to organise architects. I suggest that the House should be extremely careful when laying down how this quite considerable power is to be exercised. We are not told of any grounds, except one, on which the board are going to proceed. The words are extraordinarily wide:
On such other grounds (if any) as may be specified in the scheme.

I do not want to repeat what I said on a former Amendment, but we shall not be able to reshape the scheme in this House. We can only accept it or reject it as a whole. I have listened to a good many Debates upon agricultural marketing schemes in pursuance of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1933. Again and again I have heard hon. Members get up in this House, as representative of agricultural constituencies, and make the most telling criticism of certain provisions of the scheme.
Although the House felt in many cases that there was substance in the criticism, it was quite unable to give effect to them. The Minister in charge of the scheme could not give effect to them, because, under the provisions of that Act, as under the provisions of the Bill, a scheme has to be accepted or rejected as a whole; that is to say, once we allow the Bill to pass to another place we no longer have any control in determining the grounds upon which licences may or may not be refused. The Minister said he did not want to fetter in any way the discretion of the board. I join issue with him there. In matters of this kind when we are discussing whether to deprive people of their livelihood I should certainly like to fetter the discretion of the board. For the protection of those people, the grounds upon which licences may be refused should be specifically set out in the Statute. Not one Member can tell on what grounds people are to be struck off the register and forbidden to pursue their calling in the future. My hon. Friends and I have frequently protested against legislation of this character. We are dealing here with a form of Ministerial order. The marketing schemes take that form. We are giving to those who draft the scheme and to the Department who will put it into effect, a complete discretion and completely wide powers. They can lay down any grounds that they like for the regulations of the particular branch of the industry which we are now considering. We have always protested against giving powers as wide as this, and we shall continue to do so at every future opportunity.

8.17 p.m.

Mr. K. Griffith: I beg to second the Amendment.
I agree entirely with what my hon. Friend has said and I am very puzzled


by the actual form of the Clause as it stands. I hope that the Minister will be able to make it clear to me why the Clause has taken this curious form. It starts out at the beginning of Sub-section (2) by saying that schemes do not come into effect unless provision is made under the scheme for certain things, the first of which is that there shall be no refusal of licence except; and then there are few exceptions which are given in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii). One specific exception is laid down, and then the Clause says it applies to anything else that the Commission choose to specify. It seems ridiculous. It is like saying that you can only refuse a licence on the 1st April and that you can also refuse it on any other day you choose to select. The second liberty seems to make the first specific restriction unnecessary.
I cannot be answered with the argument that the Commission must specify the grounds of the refusal, because the whole of paragraph (a) deals with the things that they have to specify, and if you try to lay down rules for the things that you have to specify, what is the sense of coming along with an omnibus Clause which allows them to specify anything? I take exception to the Subsection on the general grounds, and also because it does not seem to me that, in its present form, the drafting of the Clause is in any way wedded to the Bill. If the Minister wants to give an absolutely free hand he might as well have said so without attempting to make any specification. I should prefer the course advocated by my hon. Friend and that is that we should now take responsibility in this House for specifying all the grounds which have to be made clear so that those who come into the operation of the Bill may have reasonable grounds of knowing what they have to meet.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The hon. Gentlemen who moved and seconded the Amendment have approached the question as though the Clause were designed to confer powers upon the Marketing Board, but in fact the Clause is restrictive of their powers. All the enabling powers of the Clause come before this provision, which says that the powers shall not be of any effect unless the scheme itself makes provision for certain things. One of the things is what we

regard as the very important matter of refusing to grant a licence. The Bill makes it plain that the board shall not have an unlimited discretion in the matter of refusing licences, but can refuse them only on specified grounds and if there are any other grounds upon which the board wishes to have power to refuse licences they must be specified in the scheme; that is, in the scheme on which the producers will vote and make their own arrangements, and which has to be approved by the commision and the Ministers.

Mr. Foot: It could be unlimited as the Bill stands now. There is nothing to prevent a scheme being drawn up in accordance with sub-paragraph (i) and any other ground being put in.

Mr. Morrison: There is nothing to prevent them from doing that, but I should think there would be the strongest opposition from the producers themselves and from the industry. The effect of the Amendment is to cut out sub-paragraph (ii). If that were done we should only have the grounds mentioned in sub-paragraph (i). What other grounds could be specified? It is not very easy to say straight off, but I could imagine one or two; certainly if there is any other ground they must specify it. I would mention the persistent breach of trawling regulations and general fishing regulations.

Mr. K. Griffith: Why not put it in the Bill?

8.24 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: I rise to add a few sentences to what the Minister said and to lodge a precautionary note against hon. Members below the Gangway as the exclusive champions of liberty. In their Amendment I think they are barking up the wrong tree, for the reason that there is much greater ground for apprehension that the powers under sub-paragraph (i) will be abused than will those in subparagraph (ii). In sub-paragraph (i) the board are empowered to refuse a licence
on the ground that, in the opinion of the board, a sufficient number of licences are already in force.
That gives an almost unlimited power for wrongdoing on the part of the board, and the only safeguards are those which apply, not only to restriction on that ground, but to restriction on every other ground. Those safeguards are that every


scheme must be passed by the Minister, and that it must be voted upon, and that must pass through this House. I think there is far more ground for apprehension that the board will take an erroneous view, or a view too favourable to their own interests, on the ground that there is a sufficient and adequate demand for fish than on some imaginary ground such as the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) appears to think may be utilised under sub-paragraph (ii). It has been said very often in this House that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. I must say that the vigilance of the hon. Member for Dundee has not been altogether consistent, because the Bill was before a Standing Committee for many a long day, and that eternal vigilance was not manifest.

Mr. Foot: I was not a member of the Committee.

Mr. Garro Jones: I think some of the hon. Member's colleagues were.

Mr. Foot: No.

Mr. Garro Jones: In that case they should have made representations through the usual channels, but there again their vigilance was not manifest, because they were certainly entitled to representation on the committee, and, if their anxiety for the security of the fishing industry was so great, they should have obtained representation on the committee. I do not wish to attack hon. Members below the Gangway; I entirely share their anxiety on these points; but in the particular case they have now brought forward I think that, as I have already said, they are barking up the wrong tree, and I hope they will not persist.

Amendment negatived.

8.29 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: I beg to move, in page line 35, after "fish," to insert:
and had been continuously in the possession of one or more home producers of white fish since the beginning of the fourth day of November, nineteen hundred and thirty-seven.
Sub-section (2) of Clause 9 provides that boat licences may be refused on grounds of redundancy and on such other grounds, if any, as may be specified in the scheme. The time limits are prescribed by paragraph (b) of the Sub-section.
Their effect is that a licence may not be refused before a specified date for a boat which either is in use or laid up when the scheme comes into operation, or was already under construction or contracted for on 4th November, 1937, the date of publication of the Bill. Suppose that someone builds a new trawler now, and the boat, having been built, subsequently comes into operation. The board might wish to refuse a licence for the boat on some ground specified in the scheme, and the owner of the boat would not be protected against such refusal by sub-paragraph (ii) of paragraph (b), because he had not entered into a contract for the building of the boat before 4th November, 1937. On the other hand, if he enters into a contract now, and succeeds in getting the boat built before a scheme comes into operation, he is protected from refusal of a licence by the terms of subparagraph (i). That would be an anomalous position. The only object in introducing the date of publication of the Bill as a limiting date was to prevent people from forestalling the regulatory provisions of the Bill, and if someone infringes the spirit of the Bill by starting to build a boat since the publication of the Bill, it does not seem quite fair that he should be able to "get away with it" merely because he is able to get the boat finished before a scheme comes into operation. Accordingly, it is proposed that, to bring himself within the exemption, he must show not only that the boat in question is already in his possession, when the scheme comes into force, but also that it has been continuously in the possession of a home producer of white fish since the beginning of the day of the publication of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I beg to move, in page 12, line 30, after "Commission," to insert:
and empowering the Commission on any such appeal to confirm, annul, or vary the decision or direction
I put this Amendment clown because I was somewhat puzzled by the words which are now in the Bill, and which I propose in my next Amendment to omit. Sub-paragraph (d) provides that any person who is aggrieved by the refusal of the board to grant a licence may appeal to the Commission, and then follow the words:


and determining the powers exercisable by the Commission on any such appeal.
That means that the powers to be exercised by the Commission on the appeal will be specified in the scheme. As I have already pointed out, we have no control over the details of the scheme, and it may be that when the scheme is produced, we shall find that there is only a limited power in the Commission to reverse or vary the decisions of the board under this Section. When we are setting up a licensing system, we are all anxious, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Middlesbrough (Mr. K. Griffith) said earlier, not only that justice should be clone, but also that it should seem to be done. It is necessary that we should have a fair and proper system of appeal, and, therefore, I propose to substitute the words of my Amendment, which would give the Commission, when appealed to, a complete discretion to confirm, quash or vary the decisions or directions of the board. It may well be that this simply represents what the promoters of the Bill have in mind, and, if so, I shall be merely expressing more correctly what their wishes are. It would be unfortunate if we were to leave the Bill as it stands and were to find later, when the scheme is produced, that those who were refused a licence, and therefore the opportunity of making their living in the fishing industry, had not a complete right of appeal to the Commission.

Mr. Acland: I beg to second the Amendment.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: My hon. Friend proposes that, instead of it being left to the scheme to determine the powers which the Commission may exercise on appeal, those powers should be specified in the Bill. The form in which the Commission's powers would be determined by this Amendment would make those powers as wide as they could possibly be. I do not think it is necessarily desirable that the Commission should be endowed with such extensive powers. After all, the only object of providing for appeal is to protect registered producers from injustice at the hands of the board, not to provide for every act of the board being reviewed by an external authority. For those reasons I think it is wiser to leave it to the scheme to determine what precise powers should be exercised by the Corn-

mission on appeal in order to safeguard registered producers from injustice. I would point out to my hon. Friend that the provisions of the scheme in this connection will, like the rest of the scheme, be subject to approval by the Commission, by the responsible Ministers, and by the persons in the industry who are likely to be governed by the scheme. I hope the House will agree that it is better to leave these powers to be specified in due course in the scheme.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 12.—(Miscellaneous provisions which may be contained in marketing schemes.)

Amendment made: In page 14, line 31, leave out "have," and insert "has."—[Mr. Wedderburn.]

8.36 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: I beg to move, in page 14, line 33, at the end, to insert:
(c) for making exemptions from all or any of the provisions of the scheme in respect of such classes of persons, and such activities, as may be specified in the scheme or determined by the board.
At present, the Bill makes provision for any class or classes of persons engaged in the industry to be exempted from registration, either in the Commission's register or under marketing schemes, but no provision is made for the exemption of particular classes of sales effected by registered persons or particular classes of boats owned by them. It might be desirable for a board to be able to exempt, for example, certain classes of sales, without exempting entirely from the scheme the persons who effect such sales. This Amendment is designed to make that possible.

8.37 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman quite satisfied that he has not gone too far in this proposal? He is empowering the board to exempt whole classes of producers. Surely that might conceivably be abused in the interests of some particular section represented on the board. I cannot think that the Minister is blind to this risk, and I do not propose to do more, at this late stage, than ask him to give his consideration to that.

Mr. Wedderburn: I do not think there is such a risk; but since the hon. Member asks me to consider it, I will certainly do so.

8.38 p.m.

Mr. Petherick: The House has been very critical of this Bill, and quite properly so, during its various stages; but this Amendment I can wholly welcome. As one who doubts the inestimable boons which are to be conferred on the industry by this Bill, I think the more exemptions that are granted, the better. The less people are likely to be adversely affected by such schemes, the happier I shall be.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 13.—(Provisions as to the submission, confirmation, amendment and revocation of marketing schemes.)

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Foot: I beg to move, in page 16, line 25, to leave out Sub-section (3).
The House will see that the procedure that is contemplated in this Clause is that a poll should be taken of the registered persons, and afterwards, if a majority is obtained, the scheme is to be laid before Parliament, and the approval of the two Houses obtained, after which the Minister will table an Order in draft. That is different from the procedure under the Agricultural Marketing Acts, according to which the two Houses of Parliament must approve this scheme first, and then it is submitted to a poll of registered producers. This Amendment is linked up with a series of Amendments in my name, which are all designed to the same end. I am proposing that, first of all, the scheme should be laid before the two Houses of Parliament and they should have the power to amend the scheme, as well as to accept or reject it. After it has been passed, with or without Amendments, it must then be submitted to the registered producers. Obviously, I have to take it in that order, because otherwise the registered producers, if they vote first and we have power to amend, will not know whether the scheme for which they vote is the one that will come into force. This is a matter to which I attach great importance.
We have had a great deal of experience of these marketing schemes. They are brought forward as draft Orders and laid before the House. They are matters of considerable complexity. They affect intimately the livelihood of very large numbers of persons. They are brought before the House, and very often at very

short notice. With the milk scheme, we had only five days in which to familiarise ourselves with the terms of the scheme. It was passed late at night, taken with a lot of other business; and afterwards the right hon. Gentleman who is now Secretary of State for Scotland made a speech in the country in which he said:
My scheme to revolutionise the milk industry had 90 Clauses. In the morning the House knew nothing about it, and by night it was the law of the land.
I do not know if that was a correct picture of what happened; but, at any rate, it throws an interesting light on the mentality of the Front Bench. A great many things that come before the House are trivial compared with these schemes. Yet I remember, when we had the potato marketing scheme, the hon. Member who is now Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour making a great many criticisms of that scheme, the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) making many criticisms from the point of view of Scotland, to which the House listened with great interest and which had much substance, yet we were unable to give effect to them, and the Minister could not have given effect to them, even if he had wished to do so, because we had no power to amend. This modern practice of doing things by Order, which used to be done by Statute, is derogating in a very real sense from the power and authority of this House. I do not propose, in view of the fact that many Members are not present at this hour, to divide the House on this issue, though I would on another occasion; but I want to make my protest against the adoption of a procedure of this kind, fettering this House on a matter which affects the lives of a great many of our constituents.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Acland: I beg to second the Amendment.
I presume that the Minister is not going to accept these Amendments, and my hon. Friend has intimated that we shall not divide; but I hope the Minister will keep this in mind. Would he not consider whether, when the next Bill of this kind comes along, arrangements may be made so that a committee of Members who are really interested in the matter should deal with schemes of this kind and make amendments in Committee upstairs?


Will he examine whether that is a possible way of getting out of what, I am sure, the Minister must regard as an unsatisfactory position, in which you have to choose between taking up the time of the whole House with an immense amount of detail, or presenting a Bill to the House in a form which the Minister can amend when he is convinced by our Amendments that it is desirable?

8.46 p.m.

Mr. Shinwell: There is only one observation I want to make in reply to hon. Members who sit on the Liberal benches. They deprecate taking up the time of the House. If the Liberal party had cared to be represented on the Committee, as it might well have been, it might have been unnecessary to take up the time of the House with all these Amendments. We might have disposed of them in the name of the Liberal party during the Committee stage of the proceedings. I am within the recollection of hon. Members on both sides of the House who were present when I say that during the Committee stage we discussed most of the matters to which the Members of the Liberal party have referred in the course of the discussion on the Report stage tonight.

Mr. Foot: Did you discuss this matter?

Mr. Shinwell: To the best of my recollection we discussed the question whether it was desirable to permit schemes of this kind to pass muster without very careful examination by Parliament. The matter was not discussed at great length, but I can give the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) and his hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Acland) the assurance that their interests were well safeguarded by the Labour party on the Committee during their absence.

Mr. Foot: That may be so, but no trace of it appears in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Shinwell: It appears to this extent. With the exception of the hon. Member himself as far as speechmaking is concerned, supported by one or two at most of his hon. Friends, it does not appear that the Liberal party were unduly perturbed about the principles to which he referred during the course of his speech. The hon. Member said that they did not intend to press the Amendment to a Division. It is open to him to divide the House——

Mr. Foot: . Will you come with us?

Mr. Shinwell: —and if he does he will not receive the support of the Labour party.

8.49 P.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: I gather from the hon. Member that his other Amendments are consequential on this one, and that he would like me to deal with them all simultaneously. The hon. Member raised this matter, although he did not attend the Standing Committee, in his speech on the Second Reading of the Bill, and he included in his condemnation of the existing procedure, all the marketing schemes under the Agricultural Marketing Act. He has been good enough to say that he does not wish to take up much of the time of the House in dealing with this matter, and that he will not proceed to a Division. I hope that I shall be equally tender towards the House. Since the matter involves an important issue of principle which he has often raised before, perhaps I ought in one or two sentences to go over the case against it. It is a case in which most Members of the House are interested on constitutional grounds. All schemes must fall within the framework of the Bill, and the Bill is subject to detailed criticism and amendment in Parliament.
We have been told that the working of Parliament is becoming congested with too much business, and I have heard some of my hon. Friends of the Liberal party argue that it would be much better if we could spend more of our time in debating broad issues and not take up so much time with details. All these marketing schemes must be within the framework which has been subjected to detailed criticism and amendment in Parliament. Provided the scheme complies with that condition and is approved by the responsible Minister, it seems unnecessary to add to the already long and complicated procedure by conferring upon Parliament power for detailed amendment. The Bill provides ample safeguards both for persons whose activities are to be regulated by the scheme, and for the general public, and for other persons likely to be affected in their commercial interests. Those who may be registered under the schemes have power of acceptance or rejection, and all affected persons are amply protected by the constitution of the Consumers' Committee and the


Committee of Investigation. If the Minister is convinced, either by argument within the House or by any other considerations, he always has the power to revoke an unsatisfactory scheme.

Amendment negatived.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Petherick: I beg to move, in page 16, line 32, to leave out from "least," to the end of the Sub-section, and to insert:
eighty-five per centum of the total number of registered persons have voted in favour of the scheme.
Sub-section (3) of this Clause, as the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) has just pointed out, contains conditions under which a poll shall be carried out. Hon. Members will find rather an extraordinary factor in it. The Clause reads:
unless the result of the poll shows that at least half the total number of appropriate registered persons have voted, and that at least two-thirds of all the votes polled have been cast in favour of the scheme.
It appears only necessary, therefore, to have 34 per cent. of the people in the branch of the industry concerned voting in favour of the scheme and the scheme will go through. I have before in this House suggested certain conditions without which I did not think it feasible to proceed with schemes of this kind. The first condition is a very obvious one. A scheme must be sound in itself. We do not know whether a scheme is to be sound or not as yet. The second condition is that there must be a very great majority in favour of the scheme. You are presumably to coerce the minority. Thirdly, and this is almost as important as the other conditions, the minority which is coerced must consist as far as it is possible for them to consist of the non-co-operative element and not of the most efficient financially and otherwise of the trade in question.
Under the Clause as it stands about one-third of the industry could vote in favour of a scheme and that would be sufficient for such a scheme to be put into operation. I admit that it may be claimed that, if people do not take the trouble to vote, they deserve what is to coming to them. Whether that is the case or not, I say that one-third of an industry in favour of a scheme is not a

sufficient percentage for such a scheme to be carried through. My Amendment says that 85 per cent. of the industry must be in favour of a scheme. I admit that that is putting it rather high. Under the Agricultural Marketing Act the percentage which has to vote in favour of a marketing scheme before it receives Government sanction is 66 per cent. I think that is far too low—it should be much higher—but to put it at 34 per cent., one-third of the industry, as it is in this Bill, is to my mind perfectly futile and outrageous. If the Government will not accept the Amendment as it stands I hope they will give some indication that they are alive to the dangers of a small percentage of an industry being able by their votes to put a possibly unsound scheme into operation.

Mr. Beechman: I beg to second the Amendment.
These schemes will depend on good will and co-operation, and you cannot enforce good will. You may force a small reluctant minority to come in, but it seems to me that this is not a good example of collective security.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: The point at issue between the hon. Member and the Government is that, while the Government think that if at least half the total number of registered persons have voted and if two-thirds of the votes polled are in favour of the scheme, it is an indication of the feeling in the industry for the scheme to go forward, whereas my hon. Friend wishes to make it as difficult as possible for a scheme to be accepted. If only 15 per cent. of registered producers abstain from voting a scheme could not go through. I think the real safeguard is indicated in the observation of the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Beechman) that the ultimate success of these schemes must depend on good will. We think that these percentages are a reasonable condition for the acceptance of a scheme, and they do not depart from the principles in the Agricultural Marketing Act. If the hon. Member thinks that any class of producers ought not to be included under a scheme he will welcome the Amendment of my right hon. Friend to Clause 12, which provides for any class of producers to be exempted.

Amendment negatived.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: I beg to move, in page 17, line 15, at the end, to insert:
Provided that it shall not be necessary to take any poll under Sub-section (3) of this Section in relation to such an amending scheme if, within one month after a copy of the draft scheme in the terms in which the Ministers propose to lay the draft before Parliament has been delivered by the Ministers to the board administering the scheme to be amended, that board gives written notice to the Ministers that, in the opinion of the board, such a poll in relation to the amending scheme can properly be dispensed with.
The purpose of the Amendment is to enable non-controversial amendments to a marketing scheme to be made without taking a poll of persons registered under the scheme. The Amendment will bring the Bill into line with the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, which provides that if the board administering a marketing scheme proposes an amendment to the scheme a poll need not be taken unless it is demanded by a prescribed number of registered persons. The procedure under the Bill as drafted is a little different from that under the Agricultural Marketing Act, as it provides that all amendments to schemes are to be submitted to Ministers by the Commission, but the effect of the Amendment will enable this to be dispensed with, and the Bill will correspond in principle with the Agricultural Marketing Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Wedderburn: I beg to move, in page 18, line 39, at the end, to insert:
(ii) In relation to a marketing scheme for regulating, in any respect, the carrying on of two or more designated businesses, this Section shall have effect as if for Subsections (3) and (6) thereof there were respectively substituted the Sub-sections directed by the Fifth Schedule to this Act to he substituted therefor.
The object of this Amendment, which is introductory to a new Schedule to the Bill, is to lay down the necessary procedure for taking a poll in connection with a marketing scheme which covers two or more designated businesses. It is on the model of the provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, relating to marketing schemes for more than one commodity, and the procedure to be followed in these circumstances is laid Clown in two new Sub-sections which will be included in the proposed Fifth Schedule to the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(Amendment of marketing schemes on recommendation of Commission.)

9.2 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: I beg to move, to leave out the Clause.
This Clause enables the Ministers to amend a marketing scheme on the recommendation of the Commission without going through the usual formalities (that is, a poll, publication and public inquiry), prescribed for amendments put forward under Clause 13 on the one hand, and without a recommendation from the Committee of Investigation under Clause 16, on the other. The primary object in conferring these powers on Ministers was to enable them to make as quickly and conveniently as possible any amendments which might be required to prevent a clash between the effects of any two schemes, and also to take emergency action if any provisions of the scheme were found to be operating against the public interest; and if the situation did not justify the Ministers in having recourse to the extreme remedy of revoking a scheme it enabled the Commission to make non-controversial amendments without the necessity of taking a poll. In the opinion of hon. Members this represented a considerable departure from the principle of self-government, which is inherent in the marketing schemes machinery, and it is no doubt for that reason that a number of hon. Members put their names down to this Amendment of my right hon. Friend. On consideration it seems doubtful whether the purposes for which the Clause was drafted are really sufficient to justify such a departure, and, therefore, I am now proposing that the Clause should be omitted from the Bill.

Sir D. Thomson: May I thank the Under-Secretary for meeting the views we expressed in Committee?

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 16.—(Appointment and functions of consumers' committee and committee of investigation.)

Amendment made: In page 21, line 7, leave out the first "the."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

CLAUSE 17.—(Incidental provisions as to consumers' committee and committee of investigation.)

9.6 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: I beg to move, in page 22, line 27, to leave out "directions," and to insert "regulations."
This Amendment, which must be read in conjunction with the Amendment in line 28—leave out "given," and insert "made"—is a drafting Amendment to bring the Clause into conformity with the provisions of the Marketing Act, 1931, and it has the effect of providing that procedure in the committees shall be laid down by regulations made by the Minister instead of by directions.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 22, line 28, leave out "given," and insert "made."—[Mr. Wedderburn.]

CLAUSE 19.—(Co-operative schemes.)

9.7 P.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 23, line 16, to leave out from "that," to "no," in line 17.
We are now dealing with a Clause which is intended to provide machinery for co-operative effort among the inshore fishermen. In the discussions in Committee, some doubt was expressed as to whether the Bill as drafted was adequate to provide discretion to the Commission for putting forward schemes, and in the course of the discussion, I made a suggestion, which was favourably received by the Committee, that an Amendment should be made so as to leave the classes of fishermen for whom these co-operative schemes may be set in motion at the discretion of the Commission. I think that was considered by all sides of the Committee as being a good suggestion.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 23, line 18, leave out from "by," to "and." in line 19, and insert "the application of a marketing scheme to such persons."

In page 24, line 26, at the end, insert:
(c) for making exemptions from all or any of the provisions of the scheme in respect of such classes of persons, and such activities, as may be specified in the scheme or determined by the authorised body."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

CLAUSE 20.—(Registration under co-operative schemes.)

Amendment made: In page 25, line 24, leave out from "thereunder," to the end of line 26.—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

CLAUSE 28.—(Offences by corporations.)

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 32, line 16, to leave out the Clause.
This is consequential upon the redrafted Clause 28 which I moved earlier in the proceedings.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 36.—(Meaning of home producer of white fish.)

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 36, line 23, after the second "if," to insert:
while carrying on the business of catching and landing white fish.
This Amendment is little more than a drafting Amendment. It is intended to make clear that a person fishing for pleasure does not come within the definition of "home producer of white fish."

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 38.—(Extension of Part I to Northern Ireland.)

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 37, line 17, after "shall," to insert:
with such adaptations and modifications as may be specified in the order.
This Amendment is introductory to a series of Amendments to this Clause and Clause 62, the object of which is to create more flexible machinery than is in the Bill at present for the extension of Part I to Northern Ireland. The Amendments enable the Orders to be revoked and varied by the same procedure as they are made, and there is a drafting Amendment which I think improves the wording.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 37, line 18, leave out from "Ireland," to end of line 22.

In line 22, at the end, insert:
Any such Order may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order in Council made in pursuance of such a resolution as aforesaid."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

CLAUSE 39.—(Provisions for giving effect to convention as to meshes of nets and size limits for fish.)

9.10 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 40, line to, at the end, to insert:
(2) If the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and the Secretary of State for Scotland by order so direct, no person shall, in Great Britain, land, sell, expose or offer for sale, or have in his possession for the purpose of sale, any lobster which is carrying any spawn attached to the tail or some other exterior part of the lobster, or which is in such a condition as to show that, at the time when it was taken, it was carrying spawn so attached.
This is a matter on which I ought to say a few words. The intention of the Amendment is to enable the Minister to take measures to protect the stock of lobsters by preventing the destruction of spawn. The protection of the lobster fishing industry is particularly important from the point of view of the inshore fishermen. While we do not propose to use this power unless there is a depletion of stocks in certain areas, we think it ought to be possessed by the Minister. Curiously enough, a similar power already exists in relation to crabs under Section 8 of the Fisheries (Oysters, Crabs and Lobsters) Act, 1877, but we think that what is good for crabs is also good for lobsters, and that this power should be possessed by the Minister.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Petherick: I should be obliged if you would inform me, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether I may discuss the Amendment to the Amendment on the Paper in my name in connection with the Minister's Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Captain Bourne): Mr. Speaker has not selected the Amendment to the Amendment. I think the hon. Member might be in order in asking a question on the Minister's Amendment.

Mr. Petherick: When I first saw the Amendment, I had certain objections to it for a technical reason to which I will refer later in my remarks. The Amendment came to my notice only two days ago, and as I was rather doubtful about it, I took the precaution of consulting local representatives of the fishing industry in Cornwall about it. I got a cri de Coeur from them in relation to the Amendment. They informed me that

the Cornwall Sea Fishery Committee some time ago sent a report to my right hon. Friend objecting very strongly to any proposal, such as is contained in this Amendment, for prohibiting the taking of what are called in Cornwall berried lobsters, that is to say, lobsters with eggs spawn attached to them. The local fishermen—and I believe fishermen in other parts of the country—very much object to any provision such as this one being introduced into the Bill unless some form of compensation is given. Frankly, I do not see how it is possible to compensate fishermen for lobsters which are thrown back into the sea and not landed; but I would point out to my right hon. Friend that at many small ports round the coast, some of the fishermen live almost exclusively on crabbing and catching lobsters.
I quite see that there is some force in the. Minister's contention that the stock would be conserved by so doing, but in Cornwall, if the lobsters which had eggs attached to them were thrown back into the sea, it would merely mean making a present to the French crabbers. There are about 100 French ships which fish for crabs and lobsters off the coast of Cornwall for a good part of the year. It would be of no use the Cornish fishermen being obliged to throw the berried lobsters back into the sea if the French then caught them, for obviously the stock would not then be conserved. As a matter of fact, on the North coast of Cornwall particularly, there is already a certain close season. There is no legal close season, but there is one in practice because during the winter months when the weather is too bad for them to go out for crabs or lobsters the fishermen are engaged in catching herring and pilchards. As a result, the rocks where the lobsters abound are left alone and the lobsters have a chance to breed.
In the small coves during most of the winter months the fishermen go out after bass and mullet but in the very small ports a good many of the men for ten months of the year live almost entirely by the catching of crabs and lobsters. It would be hard on these men if they were forced to throw these berried lobsters back into the sea. It would practically mean starvation for some of them. The French tried to impose a similar condition some years ago but were obliged to abandon it. My right hon. Friend may say that it


has been tried successfully in Northumberland where it resulted in an increase in the catch and that is true, but off the Northumberland coast there are no French crabbers. It is too far for them to go.
The Amendment itself, apart from its object, seems to be rather peculiar. I can understand that it has a rugged grandeur of its own, but from the point of view of drafting it is by no means perfect. My right hon. Friend has a reputation as a wit, and I think he may have set at defiance his more staid advisers and drafted this Amendment himself, because the grammar seems somewhat odd. It says:
If the Minister so directs, no person shall in Great Britain, land, sell, offer for sale, or have in his possession for the purpose of sale, any lobster which is carrying any spawn attached to the tail or some other exterior part of the lobster, or which is in such a condition as to show that, at the time when it was taken, it was carrying spawn so attached.
Hon. Members will notice the repetition of the word "lobster" in order that there shall be no possible misconception about the fact that it is the tail of the lobster to which reference is made and not the tail of the fisherman. It seems to be an example of that unconscious humour which creeps into Acts of Parliament from time to time. It is not even accurate because it reads like this:
any lobster which is carrying any spawn attached to the tail or some other exterior part of the lobster.
When I was a small boy I read a peculiarly nauseous book called "Eyes and No Eyes." It concerned two little boys one of whom was very observant, while the other was not. I always had an uncomfortable suspicion that I was like the unobservant one, but when I saw this Amendment I thought there was something wrong about it, because, having been brought up by the sea, I had noticed that the spawn of lobsters are not attached to the tail but to the actual body of the lobster. I know that "tail" is the ordinary table expression for that part of the lobster other than the claws which one eats, but I took the trouble to look up authorities in order to find out where the eggs are attached to the lobster and this is what I find:
Those (the eggs) of the Decapoda when extruded are coated with a viscous secretion

which thickens into threads, and causes the eggs to adhere to each other and to the fine hairs with which the swimmerets of the abdomen of the lobster and the female crab are fringed. Here they are retained securely until the period of hatching has arrived, when the brood in most cases is dispersed.
Although my right hon. Friend with his entertaining humour and his advisers are wrong scientifically, I am glad at any rate that they have referred to it as the "tail" of the lobster which is a fairly common though erroneous expression and that they did not leave the definition to that other department of the Ministry which deals with the rustic and bucolic side of its work, in which case it would doubtless have been referred to as the "brush." Irrespective of the principle of this Amendment which I contend is bad as far as the coastal fishermen are concerned, I submit that its grammar is faulty, its intention inaccurately expressed and its result ridiculous. Each of the 615 Members of this House is responsible in some small way for the condition in which a Bill leaves this House and goes to another place. I, for one, absolve myself of any responsibility for the almost irreparable breach which this Clause, as amended, may make in the decorum of their Lordships in another place. I hope my right hon. Friend will send along with the Bill, a chit of apology and explanation to their Lordships for any damage that it may cause in that respect.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: On the substance of the Amendment, I would say that I am aware that on the coast of Cornwall matters are arranged as my hon. Friend has described and that there is a close season which operates beneficially, as far as the stock of lobsters is concerned. But that is not true of the whole country. The Amendment does not seek to apply this prohibition now, but merely to arm the Minister with this power so that if, in any district, it should be found to be in the interests of the fishermen to do so, the prohibition could be enforced. It will be enforced only if circumstances arise in which the slaying of these particular lobsters causes a decline in a stock which is such an important element in the lives of the fishermen. I was interested in what my hon. Friend said about a French effort in this direction in the past. Under this Amendment, even if the French crabbers did take these lobsters, they could not land them here, and with this power at


hand it might be possible to come to some mutual arrangement with the French if the stock became dangerously low.
In regard to the language of the Amendment, I assure my hon. Friend that these words are not the result of any whimsical ebullience on my part. They have been borrowed from that grand old Statute to which I have already referred, namely, the Fisheries (Oysters, Crabs and Lobsters) Act of 1877. That takes us back to the spacious days when Parliament had more opportunity of making itself acquainted with the domestic habits of the common lobster than it is our fortune to enjoy to-day. These words are taken straight out of that Act. They are sanctified by usage. They have a venerable air of antiquity. They have been used with success in relation to crabs in the past, and I have no doubt that the wisdom of our ancestors has devised a formula in this respect which is equally applicable to lobsters.
The point about the exterior part and the tail, to which my hon. Friend drew attention, is that, whatever might be the scientific view of the exact locus on the carapace of the lobster to which the spawn actually adheres, it will he caught by the words, "or in some other exterior part," and the phrase is sufficiently wide for that purpose. The point about it is the exterior part, because the spawn can exist inside as well as outside the lobster. It would be wrong for a man who had no idea that a lobster contained spawn, and it was found that spawn was adhering to the inside, to be held to be committing an offence. For that reason I again commend the words of the Amendment. I assure my hon. Friend that they are sanctified by use and they will be found appropriate to the purpose.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 40, line 11, leave out "the preceding Subsection" and insert "either of the two preceding Sub-sections."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

CLAUSE 52.—(Constitution of local fisheries committees.)

9.26 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 50, line 17, to leave out from "shall," to "have," in line 19, and to insert:
subject to the provisions of the next following Sub-section.

This is a phrase introductory to a series of Amendments designed to simplify and improve the working of the Clause. The Clause as at present drafted provides that the number of fishery members on each Local Sea Fisheries Committee, instead of being required as heretofore to be at least as great as the number of members of the county or borough council, shall in future not exceed that number. It is now proposed that the number of additional members to be appointed should be left in the discretion of the Minister except that there must be one member representing each fishery board exercising sea fishery powers. Also, in order to provide a uniform term of office for all members of the local fishery committees, it is proposed that the normal term should be three years, which approximately corresponds with the life of the normal county council. The last Amendment deals with the date. We have fixed 1st April, 1940, for these provisions to take effect. That leaves a sufficient period after the election of the council for the necessary nominations.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made:

In page 50, line 32, after "proportions," insert "as may be so determined."

In line 33, leave out from "members," to end of line 5, page 51, and insert:
not exceeding the number of members required to be appointed by the council or constituent councils, as may be appointed in accordance with the following provisions of this Section.
The additional members of such a committee shall include one person appointed by each fishery board having jurisdiction within the district of the committee, and as to the rest shall be persons appointed by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries as being persons acquainted with the needs and opinions of the fishing interests of that district.

In page 51, leave out lines 6 to 21, and insert:
(2) In relation to any local fisheries committee constituted by an order made before the commencement of this Act, the preceding Sub-section shall not take effect until the first day of April, nineteen hundred and forty.
(3).

In line 22, leave out "eighth day of March," and insert "first day of April."

In line 23, leave out "additional."

In line 26, leave out "additional."

In line 28, leave out "an additional," and insert "a."

In line 29, leave out "at," and insert "not later than."

In line 32, leave out "eighth day of March," and insert "first day of April."

In line 34, at end, insert:
(4) At the beginning of the first day of April, nineteen hundred and forty, so much of any order made before the commencement of this Act as relates to the additional members of a local fisheries committee or to the term of office of the members of such a committee shall cease to have effect.
(5) Sub-section (3) of Section one of the principal Act shall have effect as if in that Sub-section after the word 'subject' there were inserted the words 'to the provisions of the last preceding Sub-section and of Section fifty-two of the Sea Fish Industry Act, 1938, and to.'".— [Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

CLAUSE 54.—(Liability of owners of fishing boats for illegal fishing.)

9.32 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 52, line 23, at the end, to insert:
or to a fine not exceeding three hundrea pounds or to both such imprisonment and such fine.
The object of this Amendment is to enable a fine to be imposed as an alternative or an addition to imprisonment for a third offence of illegal fishing within the fishing limits. It is considered that in certain cases a heavy fine would be a very effective deterrent. In some cases, if imprisonment were the only form of punishment left open, it would not be so easy for benches of magistrates to find the necessary evidence, whereas in the case of companies, a heavy fine, if you could not get a case for imprisonment, would be an adequate punishment.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 58.—(Variation and revocation of orders constituting local fisheries committees.)

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 54, line 25, to leave out "with the concurrence," and to insert "on the application."
This Amendment and the next four Amendments are designed to enable a local fisheries committee to take the initiative of applying for varying or revoking an order. At present the initiative lies solely with the council. With all the preoccupations of the county council it is sometimes difficult to get matters

attended to as they should be. The Clause would enable the Minister to make an amending or revoking order without an application from the council provided the Committee concurred. On consideration I thought it was preferable that the initiative should rest either with the council or with the committee and the Amendments are drafted to achieve this end.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 54, line 26, after "committee," insert "and after consultation with every county or borough council."

In line 30, leave out "either.":

In line 31, leave out "with the concurrence," and insert "made on the application.":

In line 32, after "committee," insert "and after consultation with every county or borough council."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

CLAUSE 62.—(interpretation.)

9.35 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 57, line 7, to leave out from "Gazette," to the end of line 10.
This is consequential on a Government Amendment to Clause 38, page 37, line 17.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 57, line 14, leave out from "Scotland," to the end of line 18."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

NEW SCHEDULE.—(Provisions to be substituted for Sub-sections (3) and (6) of Section thirteen in relation to a marketing scheme for regulating the carrying on of two or more designated businesses.)

Sub-section to be substituted for Sub-section (3) of Section thirteen.

(3) If, after the preceding provisions of this Section have been complied with in relation to a marketing scheme for regulating, in any respect, the carrying on of two or more designated businesses, the Ministers decide to proceed in the matter of the scheme, they shall forthwith direct the Committee to cause to be taken in the prescribed manner, in relation to each of those businesses, a poll of appropriate registered persons, being persons who are registered in the Commission's register as carrying on that business, and shall take no further action in the matter of the scheme unless, in the case of eack poll so taken, the result of the poll shows that at least half the total number of ap


propriate registered persons entitled to vote have voted, and that at least two-thirds of all the votes polled have been cast in favour of this scheme.

Sub-section to he substituted for Sub-section (6) of Section thirteen.

(6) If, in the case of any marketing scheme for the time being in force which is a scheme for regulating, in any respect, the carrying on of two or more designated businesses, a request for a poll on the question whether or not the scheme should be revoked is made in writing to the board administering the scheme by or on behalf of the prescribed number of persons registered under the scheme as carrying on a particular designated business, the board shall forthwith communicate the request to the Commission, and thereupon the Commission shall cause to be taken in the prescribed manner a poll of persons registered under the scheme as carrying on that business, and shall communicate the result of the poll to the Ministers; and if the result of the poll shows that not less than half the total number of votes polled have been cast in favour of revocation of the scheme, the Minister shall by order revoke the scheme:

Provided that no poll of persons registered under the scheme as carrying on a particular designated business shall, without the consent of the board, be taken under this subsection—

(a) within the two years immediately following the date on which the order confirming the scheme was made; or
(b) within such period after the date of the declaration of any previous poll of persons registered under the scheme as carrying on that business, being a poll taken under this Sub-section in relation to the scheme, as may be specified in the scheme.—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, "That the Schedule be read a Second time."
This looks very formidable in length, but in reality it is merely inserted to correct an omission from the Bill by providing the necessary procedure for the taking of a poll in the event of a marketing scheme being put forward by two or more designated businesses; and for the information of hon. Members the provisions of the Schedule are to be found under the provisions of Section 3, Subsection (4) of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether it is necessary for a poll to show a majority in the case of each designated business participating in the scheme, or whether a majority over all is sufficient to enable him to proceed?

9.38 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: The appropriate majority would be necessary in each case.

Schedule read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Incidental Provisions as to the White Fish Commission.)

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 58, line 16, at the end, to insert:
Provided that a person shall not hold office as a member of the Commission for more than five years under any one appointment.
When this Schedule was considered in Committee the hon. Member for Seaham (Mr. Shinwell) raised a question as to a limitation of the period of appointment of a member of the Commission, and he was anxious, as were other hon. Members, that some limit of period should be inserted. There is no objection, of course, to limiting any particular appointment, but it would be unfortunate if a good man, doing good work, had automatically to leave and sever his association with the Commission permanently just because he had held office for a particular amount of time. This Amendment, while meeting the desire of the Committee that there should be a limit in the first instance, says that he shall not hold office for more than five years under any one appointment. Therefore, a suitable man could be reappointed at the end of five years.

Amendment agreed to.

FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Provisions corresponding to Certain Provisions of the Agricultural Marketing Acts, 1931 to 1934.)

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I beg to move, in page 62, line 21, to leave out from "provide," to "for," in line 22.
This is consequential on a Government Amendment to Clause 12, page 14, line 33.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 64, line 34, leave out "are," and insert "is."—[Mr. W. S. Morrison.]

9.40 p.m.

Mr. Wedderburn: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."
I think that every substantial point in this Bill has been exhaustively discussed, and that the House will now wish me to confine myself to a very short recapitulation of its contents. The first Part of the Bill is concerned with the organisation of the catching and marketing of white fish. Its objects are, firstly, to eliminate waste and to secure a better return for the fisherman, and, secondly, to supply the public with a better article of food at a reasonable price level, which we believe to be the best means of increasing the demand for fish. The principal means of achieving the first objective is the regulation of catching under a producers' marketing scheme. It is hoped that this will check excessive landings from distant waters, and secure landing of the reduced quantity of fish in better condition. The improvement in the quality of fish offered to the public will start on board ship, where the limitation imposed on the quantity of fish to be caught by each vessel on any one trip will enable the catch to be handled more efficiently and to be brought back in better condition. I think this expectation seems to be justified by the short experience which we have had of the working of the voluntary scheme which was introduced in anticipation of this Bill passing into law. The improvement will be maintained until the fish is in the hands of the consumers, by means of powers vested in the Commission and in the marketing boards.
The distributive section of the industry is also dealt with, but it has been pressed on the Government more than once that the part of the Bill dealing with organisation and distribution do not go far enough and that it might he necessary to reduce the number of traders in certain sections. The Government do not feel justified in introducing distributive licensing at this stage, but, of course, as the House is aware, the Commission has the widest possible powers to review and investigate any matter connected with the fishing industry, and it may recommend additional legislation in the light of the experience it acquires.
The inshore fishermen, whose circumstances and needs are different from those of the deep-sea section of the industry, will be assisted by being given the opportunity of

developing, with the assistance of loans from the Exchequer, co-operative marketing organisations of a character suitable to their special needs.
The next Part of the Bill contains long-range measures for dealing with one of the main underlying causes of the industry's difficulties, namely, the depletion of stocks of fish in near waters. It increases the measures of protection which are afforded by the Act of 1933 in accordance with an international Convention signed by the chief countries which fish in the same waters as ourselves, and it also touches on the question of foreign imports. That is another matter on which constant anxieties have been expressed by some of my hon. Friends. Our view is that regulation of British distant-water landings and improvement of the quality of the fish offered for sale are necessarily the first steps to be taken to restore prosperity to the industry, but we will not allow the industry's attempt to rehabilitate itself to be thwarted by foreign imports. Assurances have already been given—and they will be implemented—that full powers already exist to prevent excessive imports of foreign fish, and these powers will, if necessary, be used without hesitation. The third Part of the Bill does for the whaling industry what Part II does for white fish.
The fourth Part will be particularly welcomed by all sections of the House, because it is designed to ensure that the payment of crews of trawlers is fairly effected, and that the actual catchers of the fish receive their proper share of the profits of the restored industry.
The fifth Part contains measures for increasing the powers and efficiency of the local sea fisheries committees which do important work in protecting inshore fisheries. This Part increase the penalties which may be imposed on both British and foreign trawlers for illegal fishing within our exclusive fishery limits. The sixth Part deals with various definitions.
I would like to remind the House that all Parts of the Bill, whether it be the Parts dealing with wages or the Parts dealing with prices, are fundamentally designed for the benefit of the fishermen. The object is to create a higher and more secure standard of life for that class of man whose occupation and character are of such importance to this country. I would like to repeat the assurance, which


has already been given in Committee, that, while for the reasons which were then explained, we cannot include in Clause 1 any specification in regard to the many matters which the Commission must keep under review, the interests and the welfare of the fishermen will be unquestionably the primary and most important matter which it will be the duty of the Commission to consider.

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Adamson: We have now reached the last stage of this Bill, which has been many weeks going through its various stages, and it will, I presume, be on the Statute Book within the next few weeks. We on this side of the House welcome the Measure, particularly those of us who have been engaged in the many deliberations that preceded its introduction. The Bill is, in the main, the result of investigations in the sea-fish industry among the interested parties engaged in this essential industry. It is to the credit of the Commission that they not only tried to visualise what would be the effect of the recommendations, but went to considerable trouble to give every opportunity for views to be expressed from all quarters. It is to the credit, too, of the Ministry that they have accepted in the main the recommendations of the Commission. The two principal bodies that will come under this Bill have been given considerable powers, which we hope will be used to the fullest advantage, not merely of those engaged in deep sea fishing, or those engaged in the processes of buying and distribution, but ultimately of the consumer as well. All these sections will have consideration from the Commission that will be set up.
There has been considerable ground of complaint with regard to the difference between the first price at the ports and the ultimate price to the consumer. If this Measure accomplishes what it sets out to achieve in presenting to the consumers fish in a more acceptable manner by the methods of dealing with it after it is caught, such as its preservation, curing and salting, it will be so much the better, not merely for the original producers, but for the distributive agencies and ultimately for the consumer. We welcome the establishment of the white fish industry joint council which the Under-Secretary of State indicated as part of the machinery for administering this Measure. We were gratified that the right hon. Gentleman

accepted the representation of those engaged in the fishing industry, not merely for the purpose of giving advice but for the purpose of being consulted on what is in the best interest of the industry as a whole. It means that the workers' side of the industry will share a responsibility for the development of the industry and for securing its interests.
We joined issue to some extent on the provisions for the registration of the producers engaged in the sea fish industry. Provisions are laid down for compensation to owners of vessels where licences are either taken away or suspended. We believe that from the human point of view it is just as essential that the workers engaged in the industry should be entitled to compensation, and a special plea was made on behalf of those who are dependent upon a share of the proceeds. It is not generally understood that there are those in the industry who have not a weekly wage and who, because they are not included in any insurance scheme, have nothing to depend upon if they lose their livelihood. I refer particularly to the officers—the skipper, the mate and in some cases, particularly in Scotland, the third man, who is entirely dependent upon the proceeds of the sale from the catch before he can have one penny of remuneration. It may be that under the registration and licensing processes he may lose his livelihood without the opportunity, under the rationalisation that is bound to take place in the industry, of being able to get another ship. It is undoubtedly a hardship that is bound to be felt unless the rate of development of the industry be such as will absorb those who are now engaged in the industry but who are likely to lose their occupation.
The marketing arrangements for the industry are purely optional upon the industry, and in this degree they follow the usual marketing arrangements that have been incorporated in schemes for other industries which, as we have been so frequently reminded, are based upon the original Marketing Act of 1931. It will go down to history that the Socialist Government established the first marketing proposals for any industry. It is significant that all our basic industries so far as they are concerned with the actual production of things essential for the maintenance of the food supplies of this


country have had to be provided with marketing schemes of a similar kind.
There have been criticisms of some of the provisions of the marketing scheme which was initiated in 1931. We fully agree with the right hon. Gentleman that those provisions in certain respects need revision and that they may act partially against certain interests or sections that are affected by them. In the main, we accept the inevitability of marketing arrangements, particularly in the occupation of sea fishing, because so much depends upon the sale of the fish as to what will be the remuneration of the fishing crews. I will deal later with Part IV of the Bill, which brings about the connection between the price that can be gained from the marketing proposals and its effect upon the fishermen. I need make only brief reference to the Clauses for the preservation of fish and the size of the mesh, and the whaling provisions.
With regard to Part IV, it is an extension to some extent of that part of the Merchant Shipping Act of 1894 and does not really come within the jurisdiction of the right hon. Gentleman's Department. Credit is due to the Mercantile Department of the Board of Trade for their part in the long negotiations that took place before arriving at a final conclusion and the incorporating of the clarifying provisions that are to be inserted in the Merchant Shipping Act. If the provisions are carried out in the spirit and intention which were shown in the discussions that brought about the final settlement, for the first time the fishermen will have their legitimate rights in the settlement of wages or the amount that they will receive under the Bill.
For the first time the accounts that are to be rendered will be certified for approval. Not only will the skipper be supplied with the statement, but the members of the crew will be entitled to the settling, as far as it concerns their individual shares in the catch. There is the additional safeguard that the superintendent at the port will have the right to investigate if there is any complaint made about the settlement. We were given an assurance in the Committee that if a member of the crew has a grievance he will be not only entitled, as under the original Act, to see how the settlement was arrived at, and be able to go through the

accounts and see the books, but that some one acting on his behalf will be able to act as his representative. From that point of view it is advisable that we shall recognise fully the conditions under which, in the main, fishermen are employed. The greater part of their time, except for the very short periods between their trips, is spent on the high seas, and they have little opportunity of investigating the settlements that are carried through. Therefore, their representative, whoever he may be, who is selected by them, will have an opportunity of acting on their behalf.
In conclusion I would say that while we on this side of the House look upon this Measure as the beginning of a new development in the fishing industry, we should have preferred a greater amount of control by the State over this essential occupation. We should have preferred that it included provisions which safeguarded better the interests of those engaged in this very arduous occupation, the men who run risks not only to limb but very often to life in going to the deep in search of this essential food for the people of this country. We desire also a development of the processes which make the fish more acceptable to those who consume it. In the main the Bill will secure a more satisfactory position to those engaged in the industry, not only the fishermen themselves but those who are trawler owners or are engaged in the marketing and distribution of fish. They are entitled at least to adequate remuneration, not merely as a reward for their enterprise but because they are providing an essential food for the community. We trust that the development of the industry will bring satisfaction to those engaged in it and will equally be of benefit to the nation as a whole.

10.8 p.m.

Sir A. Lambert Ward: The hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Adamson) made one or two references to the rather hard lot of those whose remuneration depends either wholly or largely on the results of fishing voyages, and as far as I could gather from his speech he was ready to admit, that although this Bill does not do all that he would wish it to do, it does definitely place the share fisherman in an appreciably better position than he has ever occupied in the whole history of the fishing industry. For the first time he is entitled to have the accounts of a voyage


subjected to the most careful scrutiny and the most careful accountancy. The accounts, at any rate as far as his share of the proceeds of the voyage are concerned, will have to be certified and to be open to inspection. That is an improvement which everybody, I think, who has been in any way connected with our great fishing ports welcomes most heartily. It will be within the recollection of the House that although on Second Reading the Measure was welcomed from all sides, it was universally admitted that its drastic amendment would be necessary. As a result of something like 16 days' work in Committee that amendment has been thoroughly carried out, and I think we are all agreed that the Bill has emerged from the Committee a very much better and sounder Measure than it was before.
After the Bill has become law will arise what is, perhaps, the most difficult part of the task allotted to the Ministers, and that will be to secure the administration of the Bill on lines which will bring, as we hope, prosperity to an industry which has not done too well during the past two or three years. I do not minimise the difficulties with which the Ministers will be confronted in nominating the members of the White Fish Commission and the White Fish Joint Council. It is on the appointment of suitable and impartial persons to those bodies to secure just and impartial administration that the success of the whole Measure depends. It is no good disguising the fact that a large amount of jealousy exists between the great fishing ports. The people in Aberdeen and ether ports say that the large trawlers from Hull bring home such quantities of indifferent fish that they ruin the market. In Hull they say that if the fishermen and trawler owners of Lowestoft and Aberdeen had displayed one-tenth of the enterprise and energy which Hull has displayed the conditions in Aberdeen and Lowestoft would be ten times better than they are. The Ministers, in making appointments to the Commission and the Joint Council, will have to contend with all that feeling; but perhaps the position may not be so difficult as we anticipate, because there is really no need for this inter-port competition and jealousy. Everybody knows that the fish from Aberdeen and Lowestoft taps an entirely different market from the fish which is

landed at Hull. The fish from Aberdeen and Lowestoft comes, very largely, to London, where it commands a good price; the fish landed in Hull, which is mostly of the coarser type, from the northern fishing grounds, taps the markets of the West Riding and is to a very large extent sold to fish-friers and forms a reasonably cheap and very good article of food for the poorer members of the community.
Let there be no mistake about it, the success of this scheme does not depend upon raising prices to consumers. If anything on those lines is attempted, it will be a case once again of killing the goose which lays the golden eggs. The people of this country, particularly those in the West Riding, cannot possibly afford to pay more for their fish than they pay at present. A short time ago, when there was some scarcity of fish for frying, caused by the closing of the northern waters during the summer months, a great strain was thrown upon the finances of the fish friers. In many cases they were threatening that they would have to close down altogether, because they depend absolutely upon large supplies of fish at reasonable prices. It is by other means than by raising prices that we shall improve the condition of this industry. It may be done by eliminating waste and by sending as little fish as possible to the fish-meal manufacturers—I mean fish which ought to be used for human consumption. The position can be improved by eliminating wasteful competition, by securing more economical distribution and, perhaps more than in any other direction, by endeavouring to popularise fish as an article of human consumption.
That can probably best be done in three ways. The first is by endeavouring to ensure that fish arrives at the table, or at any rate in the fishmongers' shops, in the very best possible condition. This result can, no doubt, be largely achieved by research and by discovering the best means by which fish can be brought from the more distant waters to the table of the consumer. Too much is done to-day in the way of misrepresenting the fish and selling it under a false name. For example, there is the well-known trick of selling filleted catfish, no doubt quite good food, under the name of rock salmon. The fish itself is so hideous in appearance that it would not be bought


by anybody unless it were filleted. We also hear only too frequently of lemon sole, an indifferent fish, being sold as Dover sole, which is a very superior article. Those practices do not encourage the consumption of fish. Another means of popularising fish is by advertisement. We all know what effect advertisement has upon the public mind in such cases as "Eat more fruit" and "Guinness is good for you." I am sure that booming fish as an article of diet would do a good deal to popularise it.
I return to Clause 24, which has given me a great deal of satisfaction. It deals with research, and provides for a contribution to be made for research in connection with fish. If I might criticise that Clause for a moment, I would say that it is rather a mistake not to make it compulsory. So much can be learned, and we have still so much to learn, about the habits of fish and the best way of bringing fish to the market. The present method of bringing fish from the fishing grounds to the ports by packing in ice is oldfashioned, and it should be possible by experiment to find a better way. Think of the splendid condition in which fresh fruit is brought from Tasmania and South Africa, and of the magnificent condition of New Zealand lamb as served on the tables in this country, absolutely as good as it would be in New Zealand. It seems tragic that fish which has been caught for perhaps a fortnight or three weeks should arrive in this country in a condition which can only be described as—[An HON. MEMBER: "Rotten."]—well, stale and tasteless.
We want to know more about the habits of fish. We want to know whether we are seriously in danger of trawling out the resources of the North Sea. We do not know whether table fish like the sole and the turbot breed only in the North Sea or the shallow waters, or whether there is a reserve of this fish always to be found in deep water out of reach of the trawler. If it is the case that they are spawning only in shallow water, the sooner we take steps to see that they are not exterminated in the North Sea or in the shallow water off the coast of Portugal, the better. If once these fish are exterminated, or approach extermination, it will mean a very serious loss to the variety of our food.
During the Committee stage of the Bill I referred on one or two occasions to Clause 39, which deals with international agreements on the size of mesh and the question of immature fish. I cannot help feeling that, although international agreements are good, we want something more definite in the way of an international inspectorate to see that those agreements are observed. In this country we find a definite suspicion that the international agreements which are enforced here are not being enforced with anything like the same rigidity abroad, and when we go abroad we find the same suspicion existing there. Surely, all these unworthy suspicions would be got rid of if some form of international inspectorate could be devised. People in this country would be perfectly willing to have their nets inspected by a French or Dutch inspector, and I am sure that no great difficulty would be raised if an English inspector occasionally visited the fishing ports on the continental coasts.
The fact remains that, when one walks round the quays of fishing towns like Ostend or Blankenberghe in Belgium, or Scheveningen in Holland, one does see too many small fish, either offered for sale or lying about, and that makes one think that, although an agreement may have been arrived at and laws may have been passed to bring that agreement into force, the laws are not being supervised or enforced in the way that they should be. Of course the people there, if you speak to them about it, tell you that these fish were caught in territorial waters, where the regulations with regard to size of mesh do not apply, and there is not the least doubt that the harm done to immature fish life by the large-scale shrimping is very great indeed. There is no reason why the fish that are necessarily caught in the small meshes of these nets should not be thrown overboard again while they are still alive, or, at any rate, while they are still in a condition to recover. The hour is somewhat late, and I will not detain the House any longer, but I should like to say that we who represent the fishing industry and fishing ports welcome this Bill, because we think that it is a step in the right direction, and that, if properly administered, as I believe it will be, it ought, at any rate as regards the city which I represent, to place the fishing trade on a sounder basis.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. Garro Jones: I am glad that the House has not attempted to despatch this Bill through its Third Reading with unseemly haste. I must say that I, for one, listened with intense interest to the remarks which have just been made by the hon. and gallant Member for North West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward). After all, we are dealing with an industry which is of extreme importance to those who are engaged in it, and this House has always been ready to give equal attention to all legislation, whether it affects large interests or small. That is not to say that the legislation is on correct lines. In this case the Bill came to us in a very ductible form. We have attempted to guide it along certain channels, but have often found that the channels have been clearly delimited by those who introduced the Bill. Therefore, we do not look upon the Third Reading of this Bill in any spirit of political exaltation.
We think that the Bill is a second best to that which we should have desired. In at least two important respects it does not inspire very high expectations for the future. The first is in regard to the price structure. The Bill gives every kind of power to check minor abuses in the industry, but the major cause of the trouble in the industry, namely, the discrepancy between the price the producer receives and that which the consumer pays, has not been tackled. The fish which was brought into the port of Hull was sold there for an average price, taking all fish into account, during 1937 of 1d. a lb. The fish brought into Aberdeen during 1937 was sold there for an average of 2d. a lb., taking into account every class of fish. Hon Members who do a little shopping know what they have to pay for that fish on the fishmonger's slab. There is a large discrepancy between 1d. a lb. and 10d. a lb.—900 per cent. No one is suggesting that that is all accounted for by profits in the stages through which the fish has to pass. There are costs such as waste and freight; but many of these are much lower than repute would have it. It costs only a fraction of a penny a lb. to send fish from Aberdeen to London. Therefore, there remains an enormous sum still unaccounted for. The Minister has attempted to deal with that by prescribing a limit to the commission which a wholesaler may charge for such fish as

he sells on commission. But whereas only about 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. of the fish is sold truly on commission, there are various devices by which the fish is resold. These matters must be faced if the industry is to be set on a proper footing.
The Bill has undoubtedly brought the industry before the eye of Parliament as it has never been before. The fishing industry, from the earliest history of our legislation, has engaged the attention of Parliament, but never has it received such intense and careful attention as during the last six weeks. Nevertheless, unless the Commission which has been entrusted with these enormous powers carries them out with extreme diligence and courage, the Bill will not take us far, and those steps which the industry is empowered to take voluntarily it may refuse to take under this Bill. In the refusal of the Minister to accept a proposal which we brought forward, to impose a limit on the percentage which might be added to the intermediary prices, there lies the greatest weakness in the structure of the Bill. Secondly, the Bill is to some extent unbalanced as to its attitude to the importance of the men engaged in the industry. The theory is that if the industry meets with some measure of prosperity, the benefits will percolate down to the skippers and the men. We who have studied these matters with an impartial mind may be forgiven if we doubt the effectiveness of that process.
We would have preferred the Commission to be charged with powers as to the manning and hours in the industry. There is no other industry in which the conditions are so arduous and the rewards so small. I have said before, and I say again, that it is a common thing for fishermen on a trawler to have to work 15, 20 and 30 hours at a stretch, and to be at sea for a week, and not have more than an average of two hours sleep per night. There is no provision for the adequate manning of the ship in accordance with Board of Trade regulations for safety. It is true that the general principle is that a steam trawler must not go to sea without a sufficient crew to navigate the ship in safety. Every trawler has to take such a large crew in order to carry out the operation of fishing, gutting, mending nets, and so on, that there are always sufficient men, when the ship leaves port, to carry out every duty of navigation. But when these men


after 10 or 15 days without sleep, and often without time even for food, are returning to port exhausted, and, at times, almost ill with fatigue, one need not wonder at some of the collisions and accidents which take place, and the amount of suffering that these men have undergone.
I want to say a few words concerning a certain Amendment with regard to which the Minister gave us a pledge, but before lodging a complaint, I would pay a tribute to the Minister in charge of the Bill, and also to hon. Members who served with us on the Standing Committee for accepting, within the limits of the predestined principle under which a Conservative Bill was introduced, certain proposals. Other Amendments were moved in the Standing Committee and attracted a volume of support from every side of the Committee, so much so, that in some cases the Minister was constrained, perhaps against his will, to accept them. In one Amendment in particular—I am bound to make the point, because I must ask the Minister to implement his pledge—we raised the question of the registration of persons engaged in designated businesses. We established to the satisfaction of the Standing Committee, at any rate, that that provision would be of little service if those engaged in the industry were to be allowed to register their nominees. The object of registration, as I explained, was to enable the Commission to have information about the industry and to assist the different sides of the business, and to see who, in truth, was carrying out his responsibility towards his own section of the industry or other sections. After a prolonged debate we reached a stage when the Minister said:
I therefore propose to draft before the Report stage an Amendment which will meet the views of the Committee by ensuring that, in every case in which a business is owned by a nominee or by any person who is not a beneficial owner, that fact shall be disclosed to the Commission."—[OFFICIAL REPORT (Standing Committee C), 14th December, 1937, col. 158.]
We, therefore, withdrew our pressure upon him, and we were then in a situation, according to every speech made from every side of the Committee, to enforce the Amendment upon the Government, but we withdrew it upon that explicit assurance twice repeated in the

speech of the Minister. We have had no word of explanation, nor do we know whether anything is to be done.

Mr. Speaker: The point which the hon. Member is raising is not in the Bill.

Mr. Garro Jones: No, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: Then the hon. Member must not raise it.

Mr. Garro Jones: If a proposal is made in Committee stage which attracts the support of the whole Committee and is accepted by the Minister, but withdrawn on a promise by the Minister, what remedy has an hon. Member who has accepted the promise of the Minister so to amend the Bill?

Mr. Speaker: I can only tell the hon. Member that the matter cannot be raised on the Third Reading because it is not in the Bill. Only matters which are in the Bill can be raised on the Third Reading.

Mr. Garro Jones: I will content myself with reminding the Minister of his promise and ask him to implement it in another place. There is one point, affecting particularly my own constituency, which I want to raise. Power is given in the Bill to the Minister to apply the signing off and on requirement before a superintendent of the Board of Trade. That provision already exists in Aberdeen on a voluntary basis. The Bill gives the Minister and the President of the Board of Trade power to make it compulsory. I want to ask that the Minister in the exercise of this power will see that it is made compulsory in all other fishing ports. There is a fee of is. for signing on and 6d. for signing off, which the Board of Trade imposes, and if it is made compulsory the result will be that the levelling up, if I may use an Irishism, will be a levelling down to complete extinction of the signing off and on fees as at present imposed. At present a sum of £1,100 a year is collected from the fishermen in Aberdeen. No other fishing port charges these fees. Surely if it is a desirable protection for the men in Aberdeen it is an equally desirable protection for men in all other fishing ports, but if other fishing ports can dispense with the necessity of signing on and off, and thus dispense with a payment of these fees, then Aberdeen should be given similar relief.
I want to make a plea for the abolition of these signing on and off fees in Aberdeen. The men are sometimes called upon to pay these fees five times in a month, while they know that their brothers in Hull, Lowestoft and Grimsby do not have to pay them. The men in Aberdeen feel that this is a very unnecessary exaction to be laid upon the crews. Despite the fact that I have frequently challenged it the Board of Trade say that this has been done as the result of a voluntary agreement between the men and owners. Unfortunately only a very small proportion of the men in the fishing industry in Aberdeen are organised. Many of those who are in the union have not been consulted on that point, but, whether they have been consulted or not, I can assure the Minister that there is widespread dissatisfaction and irritation, out of all proportion to the amounts involved, caused by this system of signing-on and signing-off fees. They are charged more than a Mercantile Marine sailor is charged. Despite the fact that the voyages of Mercantile Marine sailors are long and signing-on infrequent, they are charged less than is charged to fishermen who sign on frequently and whose voyages are short. There is a small but serious injustice in this matter, and I hope the Minster will give it his attention. Finally, I would say that unless the Commission are prepared to tackle the question of the price. structure from the port to the consumer, this Bill will be abortive; but if the Commission do that with courage and persistence, I am convinced that the Bill will be a valuable contribution to the progress of the fishing industry.

10.42 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Heneage: The reception which this Bill has received is a matter for congratulation both of the Minister and the Government. I am sure that, from the administrative point of view, the Government are glad that this Bill is soon to be passed. I should like to make one or two observations on behalf of my constituents at the port of Grimsby. One of the reasons why this Bill was introduced was the number of trawlers which are laid up. There are, at the present time, 136 trawlers laid up, which is not only a very serious thing for the men concerned, but also a comparatively serious matter for the coal industry, when it is remembered that on every voyage to the

Arctic a trawler takes about 250 tons of coal. The number of trawlers in this country is 1,364, so that roughly 10 per cent. of the trawlers are laid up. If the Bill does anything to reduce the number of trawlers which are laid up, it will have had a good effect.
There has been a certain amount of criticism of the Bill by hon. Members who have said that the Bill is too much like State control. On the matter of State control, where hon. Members on this side differ from hon. Members opposite is that they believe that when an industry becomes either top-heavy or disorganised, so that the workers in it are suffering, it is time for the State to step in, but that the less State control there is in an industry the better it is for that industry. Hon. Members opposite, however, think that the State should control practically every industry, including the fishing industry. The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones), for instance, said that this was not the sort of Bill that hon. Members opposite would have introduced, and from that I gather that they want more State control. I think it has been found from experience in this country and in other countries that the less State control there is, the better. We say, I think quite rightly, that if there is too much State control it leads to the position which exists in totalitarian States, of which both they and hon. Members on this side have an intense dislike.
How far will this Bill lead to State control? It leads to it only to the extent that it encourages marketing schemes in the sale of white fish and various other kinds of fish mentioned in the Schedule. It does not lead to State control as such. It leads to the setting up of boards on more or less independent lines. It is a different system from that represented by public utility companies and bodies such as the Port of London Authority and catchment boards and other authorities of that kind. We find it to a certain extent worked in the case of the marketing boards. It has certain disadvantages. It has the disadvantage of being a new system which has not been properly tried out. I hope the Minister and those working with him will pay attention to this fact, and that every effort will be made to bring these boards into close touch with working conditions in the industry. In


the case of agriculture the marketing boards have failed in one or two cases because they have been too arbitrary. The Minister and the Department will, I hope, take advantage of previous experience and see that these boards carry out their duties in a proper manner and in a manner suited to the industry.
The last speaker referred to the case of the men in the industry. The system which is almost universally followed in the trawling industry is that the skipper and the mate are paid according to the profits of the voyage. The members of the crew receive a wage, but they, too, benefit to a certain extent from a successful voyage. That system has been followed for many generations with advantage, but I think it requires watching. The more mechanised the industry becomes, the more liable it is to change, and I hope that if it is found that the system is not working well, changes will be introduced. This is not the time to go into particulars of the form which those changes should take, but there are people who think that the skipper and the mate should receive a standard wage while at the same time participating in the profits of the voyage, and that the members of the crew should, in all cases, receive a bonus on a successful voyage in addition to their wages.
I believe that the Bill will stand or fall according to the way in which the Government deal with the question of importations of foreign fish. It would be out of order to go into particulars on that question, but whatever we do, and however we try to organise the production of fish by our own fishing industry, if the sale of British-caught fish in this country is swamped by imported foreign fish, the whole scheme will fail and, what is more, the whole system of organisation will become extremely unpopular among those engaged in the industry. We have all received representations asking us to support this Bill, but those representations have had annexed to them the proviso that unless imported fish is dealt with, by treaty, or by quota, or by some kind of regulation, the success of the Bill cannot be guaranteed. I think Members of all parties will agree with that, and I hope very much that the Government will deal with the question of imported fish, which is one of the most important things to be dealt with. We

feel it very greatly at Grimsby, where foreign fish comes in daily. If it is allowed to come in without regulation, possibly in increasing quantities, there will undoubtedly be tremendous feeling against the system of restricting production that is being set up. I very much hope that we shall have a statement about it.

10.51 p.m.

Mr. Windsor: As one of the representatives of Hull I think it is as well, inasmuch as much has been said about crews and captains and others associated with the fishing industry, that a word should be said about those working on the dock side, who will inevitably be thrown out of employment as a consequence of this Bill. I have received instructions, as it were, to oppose the Bill, but I think even my colleagues who are associated with the industry are a little beside the mark when they want to oppose a venture which is likely to do something to improve the general status of the industry as such. My own view is that this is an experimental Measure, and, in so far as it is an experimental Measure, I would wish it every possible success. There are two fundamental factors associated with it. First, it must mean a reduction of the number of those who are going to be employed in the industry, and, secondly, unless great care is taken, it will mean an increase in the price of fish. I would add my word of congratulation to the Minister in giving way in many instances on some of the things that some of us ardently desired on behalf of the men. I hope and trust that, in conjunction with the Board of Trade, he will take into account the matters that we raised in Committee and not only carefully observe the conditions under which the seamen are gathering the fish, but also take into account the anxiety of the people employed in the fish trade.

10.54 P.m.

Mr. Loftus: I should not like the Third Reading to pass without expressing my very deep sense of obligation to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland for reiterating his every clear and definite assurances about the regulation of the import of foreign fish. I think it necessary to say that especially in view of some of the remarks of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage). The hon. Member for



North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) said that this Bill was the second best. I suggest that in this Bill we have the second best, but that it may prove of great benefit to all the people in the industry. It is an enabling Bill, to enable the industry to organise itself, and in addition it enables the Minister to regulate, through the marketing schemes, the imports of foreign fish. I would have liked to have seen certain things in the Bill altered. I would have liked better provision for long-shore fishermen, but I accept the Bill as it is as I believe that it will do a great deal of good. The test of the Bill when it becomes an Act will be whether it raises the wages and the standard of living of the fishermen, the men who do the actual fishing. That is, of course, the test that we shall find in the actual working of the Measure. If it does, it will be a success.
In structure it is very like many of the other marketing schemes which we have passed for agriculture, and it is introduced with the same object. It is an extraordinary thing that fishermen and agriculturists in our own country and in all the countries in the world are really the victims of the city dwellers and have a lower standard of living. This Bill will, I hope, raise the standard of life of the fishermen and will prevent the decrease in the number of all kinds of fishermen. It is essential that we should keep fishermen of all types in their present and, if possible, in increased numbers, because they are a Naval reserve which may be very necessary indeed in the years that may be near us.

10.58 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: I should like to thank the hon. Member for Cannock (Mr. Adamson) for his very thoughtful speech on this subject, and particularly, if I may say so, did I appreciate his reference to the Duncan Commission, a body before whom he himself gave most valuable and useful evidence. The efforts that they made have played a great part in the framing of this Bill and its subsequent Amendments. The hon. Member for Cannock, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-West Hull (Sir A. Lambert Ward), and others have referred to a certain very important feature of the fishing industry, and that is the effect which this Bill will have upon the consumer. I regard it as

abundantly clear that if the sea fish industry of this country is to prosper, it can only to do so by providing a constant supply of cheap fish of good quality to the public. What has to be remembered about fish is that, although it is a very valuable food, it is not an essential food, and everyone knows that, if there is any rise in price of a sensational or drastic character, it will instantly find itself replaced by other viands upon our tables. There is no hope for any real commercial improvement of the industry along the lines of either bad fish or dear fish.
I feel that the main provisions of this Bill make for a steady supply of fish of a much better quality than we have had in the past, and I hope that that will effect a great increase in the consumption of fish in this country and thus provide a real economic basis for an industry whose welfare we all have at heart. The hon. Member for Cannock also referred to the workers. It is true that we were not able to meet hon. Members opposite on one or two points, but we have always regarded the workers' interest and the interests of the industry as identical, and believed that by increasing the prosperity of the industry we shall provide a firmer basis for the wages of the workers than has existed in the past.
My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North-West Hull referred to Clause 24. I agree that there is much that can be done by research in order to improve the condition of the fish when it reaches the consumer, and thus to improve the prosperity of the industry as a whole. I cannot, however, agree with him that we would have been wise to make contributions to research compulsory. It is far better in these matters, especially when we are still in an experimental stage, to proceed by way of good will and voluntary effort on the part of the industry, and I am certain that what is voluntarily given for a purpose like this is much more fruitful in its result than if it were exacted by compulsion. With regard to Part II of the Bill, I listened to what my hon. and gallant Friend said about international inspectors. The convention is embodied in this part of the Bill, and I find a genuine anxiety among representatives of all the nations to enforce it and a genuine recognition of the importance of securing to the Euro-


pean community the riches in the oceans that wash their shores.
The hon. Member for North Aberdeen (Mr. Garro Jones) put certain points to me. In particular, his criticism was that the Bill gives inadequate power to the Commission or the Minister to examine into the price structure of fish, that is to say, into the various additions which are made in the original price before the article reaches the table. I would point out to him that under Clause 30 machinery is provided by which the Commission can conduct a searching inquiry into this matter if it so desires, and can apply the Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Act and really find out what is the position. If the position thus made clear is one which demands further action, I am certain that we shall be on surer ground with that knowledge behind us than we would be by plunging ahead in its absence.
The other point which the hon. Member made was that as to the condition of the men. From the point of view of the Government, I think I can say that we measure the prosperity of the fishing industry not by any cold total of figures of tons of fish or of sums of money earned or disbursed. The real prosperity of a great industry like this, which is not only a way of earning a livelihood, but a way of life in itself distinct and separate from the landsman's existence, can only be measured by the prosperity and well being of the men engaged in it. That has been in the forefront of our minds in framing this Bill and in the deliberations upon it. The hon. Member referred to some promise that we would bring forward an Amendment at this stage. I hope he will be good enough to indicate to me where that occurs, and I will certainly look into it. We had 15 days in Committee, and I was under the impression that every matter of that sort had been dealt with.
The hon. Member also raised a point with regard to the position of Aberdeen where fishermen sign on before an inspector of the Board of Trade. He raised the question of the fees and seemed to imagine that Aberdeen was in a penalised position because these fees were not charged at other ports. I am told that Aberdeen is the only port where fishermen do, in fact, sign on before a super-

intendent of the Board of Trade. Therefore, it is the only port in which these fees are chargeable, because they are chargeable for services which the Board of Trade render in those cases. I do not profess to be an expert but I will look into the matter and see if there is anything that I can do to help. With regard to the other matters mentioned, I think they have been covered very often in the course of our discussions.
I do not think the House will think me discourteous if I conclude my observations by merely expressing my thanks to hon. Members in all parts of the House for the great assistance they have given to me during our long deliberations on the Bill. It has been a long task, but I hope we shall find that the value of the Bill to the fishermen will more than repay all the toil we have lavished upon it.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Orders of the Day — LIVESTOCK INDUSTRY ACT (DISMISSED GRADERS).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Hope.]

11.8 p.m.

Mr. Turton: I make no apology for raising at this late hour the question of the dismissal of the Malton graders. It is a well recognised axiom of our law that no man shall lose either his employment or his reputation without being given an opportunity of having that decision reviewed by an independent tribunal. It is an axiom of which we are very jealous in this country, and we are still more jealous of any infringement of that axiom by a Government Department or any statutory body.
On the 11th January of this year the Malton graders were dismissed from their employment by the Livestock Commission and were given no opportunity of having that decision reviewed. Previous to that date they were regarded as three of the best of the cattle livestock judges in the northern counties of England, but since that date, by that decision, they have been branded either as incompetent or as


dishonest, Every effort that has been made by them, by their representatives in different organisations, whether butchers, farmers or auctioneers, or whether by those who represent them in Parliament, has met with no success. That I suggest is a very unsatisfactory situation to arise, and I would ask the House, who are really the only forum to which the men can now come, to consider the position and the reasons why these men were dismissed, and to use what force the House can to secure to them an independent hearing of their case, if not reinstatement.
The Minister, at Question time, said there had been numerous complaints against these men, but there is no issue upon that. A certain super-grader who was in charge of them, a Mr. Wright, did make frequent complaints about these men from 1935 to January, 1938, but no complaint, I suggest, was made that had not been actuated by Mr. Wright and it is a noteworthy fact that in the very month when these men were dismissed, Mr. Wright was promoted to a higher sphere, either as vindicating his judgment, or, as the House may think, in order to remove a man whose methods and whose manner had become distasteful to the whole of Northern England.
Let me give one or two instances of the complaints. The first one gives the clue to the whole affair. Of course, there is no greater spur to anger than ridicule. In July, 1935, one of the graders, a Mr. Weighell, produced a steer for certification. When a grader produces an animal of his own, he can take no part in the grading, and the other graders have to do the certifying. That animal was certified. Mr. Wright came along and said, "That animal has not been properly castrated." He bent down and said, "It has a stone; I can feel it has a stone." Mr. Whelan took that animal away, and submitted it to a veterinary surgeon, and the veterinary surgeon's certificate was signed, and on 9th August, 1937, that animal was re-presented, and the other graders passed it. When Mr. Wright came along, he again made the same complaint and got very angry. The veterinary certificate was produced. On such an occasion a little laughter is indulged in. Then Mr. Wright tried to change his ground, and still refused to pass the animal on the ground that it had not been castrated within the first nine

months of its life. The animal being at that time 21 months old it would be a very curious objection, difficult for Mr. Wright to substantiate.
That was the origin of the whole affair, and as the House can imagine Mr. Wright was not very friendly with the graders after that time. He used to come up to the graders and say, I have seen at Hull some of your cattle which have been passed but ought not to have been certified." On one or two occasions, a grader said, "Will you kindly give us the number of the animal? "—all these animals are numbered—and on looking it up the grader found that such animal had never been before the Malton graders at all. Finally there came an incident on 7th January this year. The graders had been performing their normal work. Mr. Wright arrived, with a Mr. Myers, who was under him. He strode into the ring and stood in the passage way waving his arms and gesticulating and saying, "These beasts which you have passed should not have been certified." Of those animals which they had certified he rejected 12. Of course if he was right they had been acting most improperly. I have taken the trouble, because I thought this was a grave issue, to trace those 12 animals which he had rejected.
I can tell the House this: I have managed to trace II of them. Four of them went to Manchester arid two of those were killed at Manchester deadweight centre and passed out as select grade, that is top super quality. Two of them were, in fact, bought by a friend of Mr. Wright who used to buy rejected animals, and who came from Leeds. One of these was passed, I understand, as select grade, to the evident advantage of the gentleman who bought it. That makes six. I have gone further. There is one man, a gentleman named Mr. Atkinson, of Scampston, who had four animals rejected. He said that the next week two similar animals from the same yard were sent by him to Malton, and they were passed. He said that the animals that were rejected on the 7th were better than those which were passed on the 14th.
Finally, I have my strongest case to put. Mr. Barnley, of Wigganthorpe, owned one of the 12 rejected on the 7th. He was very dissatisfied. He sent the same animal on the 14th to the same market. As these men had been dis-


missed, there was another panel of graders and another super-grader; not Mr. Wright, but Mr. Myers, and they passed the same beast on the 14th that Mr. Wright had rejected on the 7th. I have given the House 11 out of the 12; I have failed in one case to trace the animal.
I submit on those facts that there is a prima facie case made out that the men have not been fairly treated. If it is thought that I am suggesting that the public purse has been robbed by laxity on the part of these men, let me give figures, which I got from the Minister, which I think put the case very clearly. In the whole period from August to January, these men had to judge 2,500 animals. They rejected 474, and gave quality subsidy to 214. I have obtained comparative figures from other markets and I find what I know to be the fact that the standard of grading was higher at the Malton market in that period than at other markets in the North of England, or even in the South.
These men were dismissed on 7th January, and from that period another panel has been put in by the Livestock Commission. What happened? In two months that new panel has passed for quality subsidy more animals than the Malton dismissed panel passed in five months. They passed 218 for quality subsidy, and the State has had to pay 218 seven-and-sixpences in two months, whereas the Malton panel made the State pay only 214 in five months. The new panel have rejected some 300 fewer animals than the old, and instead of rejecting one in five they are rejecting only one in seven.
Here is surely a case for review. The Livestock Commission refused to consider this matter at all. They want to stand by Mr. Wright who, as the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) would say, as Wright, cannot be wrong. I want to see this wrong righted, and I ask the Minister, who is the executive officer in this matter, however strongly he may feel that he would like to stand up for his Livestock Commission in this matter, yet to secure that justice is done in this. House and that grievances can be redressed.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. W. S. Morrison: If I were not convinced of the justice of the case, I should

not defend the Commission or anyone else. In my judgment, the Commission acted throughout this unfortunate affair with great patience and have worthily discharged the heavy responsibility placed upon them by Parliament to see that this subsidy from public funds is administered uniformly and justly. I cannot traverse the whole story, but I would remind the House that there are some 800 centres at which cattle may be presented for certification, and at each centre there is a certifying authority, composed of three persons—a farmer, an auctioneer, and a butcher—all of whom are qualified to judge the quality of cattle. The scheme provides that the Commission appoints these men as its agents in the district and provides also that it may terminate their appointments if they are not carrying out the duties imposed upon them to the satisfaction of the Commission.
In this case there has never been any suggestion of dishonesty against any of these men, nor, in the widest meaning of the term, any suggestion of incompetence in the sense that they know good beasts from bad beasts. That is not the point. The point is that if this sum of public money is to be administered fairly it must be administered with uniformity throughout the whole country or abuses of the gravest character will commence. If it becomes known that an authority for its own purposes adopts a different standard from others you will get all sorts of preferences by farmers going to that one place. The only trouble against these men is not lack of knowledge of cattle but the fact that for some reason they have not done what was required of them, that is to say kept the same standard as that which is uniform for the rest of England. It is rather an old story, but the Malton centre has given the Commission and the Cattle Committee which preceded it far more trouble than any other certification centre in England. This particular series of events terminated in the way to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention.
Letters were sent by the Cattle Commission to these men on 12 occasions drawing attention to the unsatisfactory state of affairs as revealed in the reports of their inspector, Mr. Wright and other persons, and asking them so to arrange that they would grade the cattle in the way that was uniform over the whole of


England, Wales and Scotland. After all that trouble, still the matter was not satisfactory, and the Commission, as a body entrusted by this House with the duty of administering public money justly and fairly, had no alternative but to ask these men to resign. After they had done so, the Commission did what any good employer does, namely, asked them to come and have an interview with the Commission. Nothing that transpired at that interview, I am told, gave the Commission any reason to alter its decision.
My hon. Friend has drawn attention to certain incidents which he states have occurred.
I am well aware that this incident of retirement has created a great deal of feeling in the district that my hon. Friend represents, and when you get that state of affairs you get an amazing crop of stories on both sides of the matter. Neither my hon. Friend nor myself was present op the occasion of certain incidents which he described with Mr. Wright. So neither of us can from personal knowledge speak about it. You get different accounts of what transpired. As regards Mr. Wright, however, I ought to say that there is no doubt at all as to his experience in judging cattle. He has spent practically all his life in the livestock business, and the Commission have a very high opinion of his capabilities as a judge of cattle. Indeed, a few months ago they promoted him to be a divisional inspector with general supervision over the whole of the North of England.
The Commission's chief inspector has frequently been told by farmers and buyers that Mr. Wright is an extremely good judge of cattle. Mr. Wright's duty of securing uniform and proper grading of cattle in Yorkshire is difficult. He has a very strong sense of duty and has done his utmost to raise the standard of grading. The remarkable thing is that no complaints have been made against him in the other counties under his charge. The Commission consider that he has performed his invidous task very satisfactorily. They do not think that Mr. Wright's reports were actuated by any

hostility against these men. Reports of unsatisfactory grading have been made by two other officers of the Cattle Committee and the Livestock Commission. There you have two other officers who have made these reports unsatisfactory to the graders who are the subject of our discussion at the moment, and in addition, the Commission have had complaints of grading cattle at Malton for other men who are butchers and dealers.
I have given a great deal of attention to this matter. I believe the fact that grading at Malton was unsatisfactory has been fully established. There has been an improvement in recent months. I do not say that that in itself is due to the grading when Mr. Wright was there, because cattle are normally better in the winter months.
I cannot traverse all the points which my hon. Friend mentioned, but I believe that, when you are dealing with public money and setting up a Commission, to give it out in rather a complicated scheme of this character, the House ought to support the men who are put in the position to handle the public money, unless they believe they have acted contrary to public interests or the dictates of justice.
I am rather sorry the matter has been raised in this way. I hope that it does not create in the House or elsewhere the feeling that there is something wrong in the administration of the subsidy. The very reverse is the case. One of the essential parts of the machinery consists of those 800 certifying authorities, each including a butcher, a farmer and an auctioneer, and the number of complaints against their decisions has been surprisingly small. It is fair to say that both the Commission and the certifying authorities as a whole have carried out the onerous duties imposed by this House to the full satisfaction not only of myself, but of all branches of the livestock industry.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.